Mixing FROM tape

  • Thread starter Thread starter Foamfoot
  • Start date Start date
F

Foamfoot

New member
Do alot of you guys still do a mixdown straight from the tape itself or has most everyone (in this forum, anyway) moved to recording on tape then transferring to a digital medium for mixing? Just curious.
 
I kept this going for a long time, however I now mix down from a digital hard drive recorder through the console and the rack gear, Oh how I wish that tape machine could get some use, but nobody wants to pay for the tape.

Tape to digital works just fine, in fact I am going over to another studio to do some mastering (my bands album) full analog mastering and then we plan to transfer the master to tape (1/2" stereo) and back to digital for some extra analog niceness. Same principle as you are talking about

Alan.
 
I still mix directly from multitrack tape to analog half-track. Often that will be a combination of analog, digital and virtual MIDI tracks in sync to the mixdown deck, but if I don't exceed my number of analog tracks it may not involve digital at all. I don't normally use digital for editing. I will bounce tracks in analog no more than one generation and for most projects that will suffice without firing up the DAW. I've used Sound Forge to assemble final CDs, but I prefer my HHB CDR-850 CD recorder (IMO still the best professional CD recorder ever made).
 
1" 24-track direct to 1/4". Some parts, typically vocals and bass (or anything else which is going to take a lot of retries) are recorded on 1/2" 8-track and then copied to the 24-track when they're done (saves wear on the big machine).

Most of my songs are worked out in MIDI first, so very little editing is required. If it does require it, I will usually edit on 1/4" because it's more fun that way.
 
I track to 24-track 2" tape deck, dump to DAW, then mix from the DAW out through a console and to a 2-track 1/4" tape deck.
Occasionally I just keep it all-analog, but I actually prefer dumping to DAW in-between, which opens the door for a lot more options, and I still get all the "analog goodness" too. :)
 
Yes.I mix in the Tascam 388 burn to CD then transfer that into the computer. I dont even have a interface yet.
 
Interesting stuff!! Thanks for all the replys.

I was, for a while, mixing straight from my tape machine (through the mixing board) into the Roland vs-2480. I have a 1/4" 2 track that I'd like to mix down to but it ain't acting right. Having a hard time keeping the levels stable on both channels. I think I need some new pinch rollers.

Anyway, in an effort to save some wear and tear on the tape machine I decided to dump the tracks recorded on tape to the 2480 and then mix from it using my analog gear. I did a few projects like this and they turned out fine.

However, a few days ago I decided to remix one of the songs straight from the original tracks on tape. The music seemed more "realistic" or "up front" (hard to describe) coming directly from tape than from the 2480.

Maybe it's that the converters in the 2480 aren't all that great or maybe it's all in my head. I dunno.

I think for now I'm gonna try and keep mixing straight from the tape and get that 1/4" machine fixed so I can mix down to it.

How hard on these machines do you guys think it is to keep rewinding and play, rewind, play, etc? I mean, I can do this for hours at a time for several days sometimes. It seems excessive, but I guess they were built for that, eh? Any thoughts? Oh, and what kind of wear and what is this doing detrimental to the tape itself?

Just looking for some more opinions.

Thanks!!
 
That depends on the machines in question. True pro quality machines can be run like that all you want. Consumer level, not nearly as robust. Pro-sumer (whatever that means) is a mixed bag.
 
Yep, I mix directly from the 1/2" 8 track (hopefully soon to be 1" 16 track!!) to 1/4" 2 track. I just can't stand bringing a computer screen into the recording process. IMO music is a spatial, not visual, medium, and for me I tend to make much better musical decisions when I can't see the music (only have some kind of semblance of it in my mind). This is mostly because a great deal of my creative process is intertwined with the recording process. Now if I was recording another band, or not recording my own music... well, a DAW setup would probably be really nice and save me a bunch of time :o.
 
Recording to tape, mixing on analogue to the computer cause we can't afford a proper 2-track deck capable of 15 ips.
 
James K said:
I mix straight from my tape machine to a CD recorder.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's the way I have to do it too, at the moment. I don't have stereo either, it's all mono! While I don't like not having proper analog mixdowns (yet), I enjoy the linear mixing workflow and I think that will help me later on when I have some *real* equipment. I wouldn't touch a DAW if I didn't have to, but unfortunately it's gonna be ProTools at my college recording class, so there's just no getting around it...
 
I record to 1/2 inch 16 track. Then mix that, some digital audio and loops, 8 channels of ASR 10 samples and a sequenced drumbox live thru a mixer to 1/4 inch Fostex 20. Then edit and assemble the tracks in Sound Forge. Works great for me. I never dreamed 30 years ago I would have all these options and capabilities.
 
Ignatius- said:
Yep, I mix directly from the 1/2" 8 track (hopefully soon to be 1" 16 track!!) to 1/4" 2 track. I just can't stand bringing a computer screen into the recording process. IMO music is a spatial, not visual, medium, and for me I tend to make much better musical decisions when I can't see the music (only have some kind of semblance of it in my mind). This is mostly because a great deal of my creative process is intertwined with the recording process.
Click to expand...

Amen brother... Amen!!!
 
I just think of all the great legendary albums that were made "computer free" and there is no doubt in my mind that the all analog method is going to create better music in the long run. If not for the simple fact that it forces the musicians to practice their instrument more, and in that practice often comes creative outbursts of energy that can be tracked on analog which sounds better.

I hope someday music is labeled "computer free" and that that label becomes the hotbed again for the real stuff.

I mix from Tascam MSR 16 track to Sony TC 756-2 1/4 inch stereo half track. From there, straight to vinyl.
 
just think of all the great legendary albums that were made "computer free"
Click to expand...

OT, but someone was telling me how (insert famous modern diva #1) song was "written" by five individuals, (insert famous modern diva #2) song was written by four individuals, and Bohemian Rhapsody was written by one.... Now, don't get me wrong, that analog studio environment was really pushed to its limits, but I'm just sayin....

Oh, 1/2" to 1/4" or 1/2" to DAT (or via 1/4" to DAT) With DAT it still feels (well technically it is) a "tape deck" Plus, I can read DAT directly on the computer from an audio capable DAT drive, which is cool; and then line up for a CD. (half assed mastering.)
 
Astralography said:
I just think of all the great legendary albums that were made "computer free" and there is no doubt in my mind that the all analog method is going to create better music in the long run. If not for the simple fact that it forces the musicians to practice their instrument more, and in that practice often comes creative outbursts of energy that can be tracked on analog which sounds better.

I hope someday music is labeled "computer free" and that that label becomes the hotbed again for the real stuff.
Click to expand...

Interesting idea... sorta like certain foods and drinks are now listed as having no high fructose corn sweetener. :)
 
Is it still computer-free if the deck is computer-controlled? Most of the professional ones are after about 1976.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top