do old analog 4 tracks have any creative uses besides recording?

[Nola]

like to master down to them to add tape saturation to the signal?

also, say you take a digital signal and run it [from PC] through an old analog four track -- do you need to actually record to tape to pick up the benefits of analog circuitry, or does just running the signal from PC through the four track and back into the PC add the coloration?

 

[famous beagle]

It would color it somewhat by just running through the preamps, but in order to get the tape effect, you need to record.

What you're describing is essentially the basis for the CLASP system. Have you heard of that?

 

[miroslav]

To consider it even further...you need to record the original tracks to tape to get the full benefit...then you go to PC.

Going in reverse is not quite the same.


To just run a stereo mix from the DAW to a tape deck...mmm...it's OK, it will certainly change things a bit...but it's kinda like cooking a stew without any seasoning, and then you serve it up and add the seasoning at the plate.

You should go record some tracks to tape...4-track or even better, an 8-track will give you enough tracks to get most of your songs down on tape, then transfer that to the DAW. If you need to add some additional tracks, those you can always go direct to DAW...or if you can sync things up, do another 8 tracks on tape and dump them in also.

You guys doing the indie/alt/rootsy Rock/Pop stuff would like tracking to tape.

 

[miroslav]

What you're describing is essentially the basis for the CLASP system. Have you heard of that?

Although, the Clasp is going first to tape then to DAW, in real time...not DAW to tape...though it's kinda similar.

 

[Nola]

It would color it somewhat by just running through the preamps, but in order to get the tape effect, you need to record.

What you're describing is essentially the basis for the CLASP system. Have you heard of that?

I never heard of CLASP, but I just did a search and found it. The 8 track one is 3k.

Recently, I read an article where Larry Crane (TapeOp) talked about mixing down stereo to 1/4" tape or 1/2" tape, but they didn't mention if he was actually recording to tape or just running it through that machine. I thought with tape, when people mix it down to stereo it's usually a 2 track machine with like 1" tape. So if you can mix down to 1/4" tape and get good results that would be interesting considering how affordable four tracks are...

 

[Nola]

To consider it even further...you need to record the original tracks to tape to get the full benefit...then you go to PC.

Going in reverse is not quite the same.


To just run a stereo mix from the DAW to a tape deck...mmm...it's OK, it will certainly change things a bit...but it's kinda like cooking a stew without any seasoning, and then you serve it up and add the seasoning at the plate.

You should go record some tracks to tape...4-track or even better, an 8-track will give you enough tracks to get most of your songs down on tape, then transfer that to the DAW. If you need to add some additional tracks, those you can always go direct to DAW...or if you can sync things up, do another 8 tracks on tape and dump them in also.

You guys doing the indie/alt/rootsy Rock/Pop stuff would like tracking to tape.

hi miroslav. i have recorded to tape before. i love tape. it's why i'm interested in knowing what can be done for cheap. i don't want to invest in a huge system, but maybe something to mix down onto would be interesting.

your seasoning analogy is good. i get it. but, wouldn't mixing down to a tape machine be better than say, using a vst plugin to emulate a tape machine? so to extend the analogy, yes it's like adding seasoning once the meal is cooked, but a vst is like adding seasoning via virtual reality on google glass or something.

For me all analog isn't practical due to the cost, size of the gear, and maintenance upkeep, so I'd be okay with a compromise of adding the natural 'seasoning', even if it is after the 'meal is cooked'. I'll never have a perfect setup so it's all about the best compromises to get close.

 

[mdainsd]

I never heard of CLASP, but I just did a search and found it. The 8 track one is 3k.

Recently, I read an article where Larry Crane (TapeOp) talked about mixing down stereo to 1/4" tape or 1/2" tape, but they didn't mention if he was actually recording to tape or just running it through that machine. I thought with tape, when people mix it down to stereo it's usually a 2 track machine with like 1" tape. So if you can mix down to 1/4" tape and get good results that would be interesting considering how affordable four tracks are...

You would be hard pressed to find a 2 track 1" machine (ever). Mixing to stereo on tape is done to mainly 1/4" tape but there is some to 1/2" two track.

 

[miroslav]

Most tape mixdowns are done to 1/4" 1/2 trac...meaning the tape just goes in one direction and you get L on 1/2 the tape and R on 1/2 the tape. Consumer 1/4" tend to be 1/4 track...meaning you record L/R in one direction, then you flip the tape and do another L/R in the other direction... 4 x 1/4

1/2" 1/2-track is a little more upscale for mixdowns (been looking for a decent one for years)...but they also tend to be expensive compared to the 1/4" 1/2 tracks which are pretty much standard for most mixdowns to tape.

If you just run the signal through the electronics and not record...you don't get any of the tape benefit.
What CLASP and home-brewed CLASP rigs are doing is recording to tape and immediately taking the output off the Playback head...so you need a deck with separate REC and PB heads.
A DAW controls the entire CLASP rig, and automatically adjusts the sync difference due to the timing distance between the REC and PB heads, allowing you to have prerecorded tracks in your DAW while also tracking to tape and instantly dropping that new track in the DAW all automatically via the CLASP system...which is why it's expensive.

Home-brewed CLASP-type rigs don't do that automatically...you have to nudge the tracks manually in the DAW to sync them up, based on the time difference computation between the heads and the tape speed of your deck.

So what's the point of all that....?
Well...you don't have to even track from end to end of the tape. The CLAPS system doesn't care where you are on the tape, it's just recording and instantly playing back into the DAW...and the DAW is where the tracks are kept permanently. So the CLASP system allows yo uto use the same tape over and over, end to end...and everything that is kept is in the DAW...unlike normal tape recording where you do the tracking start to finish and then transfer it to the DAW during separate playback.

An no...ain't doing any Cliff notes.

Seriously though...I think you can make sense of that if you understood the CLASP article.

 

[Nola]

Okay cool, so it sounds like there's no real benefit to mixing down to a four track tape machine that uses traditional 1/4 of the tape per track. Unless maybe someone want to add some hiss for a lo-fi sound, but short of that there's no artistic benefit to it, correct?

 

[famous beagle]

Although, the Clasp is going first to tape then to DAW, in real time...not DAW to tape...though it's kinda similar.

Right ... I should have specified. I was talking about the last half of the equation: going through tape en route to digital.

 

[miroslav]

your seasoning analogy is good. i get it. but, wouldn't mixing down to a tape machine be better than say, using a vst plugin to emulate a tape machine? so to extend the analogy, yes it's like adding seasoning once the meal is cooked, but a vst is like adding seasoning via virtual reality on google glass or something.

I won't argue there...about the VST being a "virtual" seasoning....but 1.) it's going to depend on the tape deck used VS 2. the quality of the VST.

What I mean is...there are a lot of old tape decks that IMO don't do much more than muck up the audio because they are not properly calibrated, they are old and worn or they are just consumer grade stuff...none of which will give you analog tape magic....though I'm sure some here will disagree.
If I was going to *mixdown* to tape...well, I actually do......but I go from DAW to console with individual tracks, and then I'm mixing down to 2-track tape...but especially if I was just going to run a nice, finished, polished mix from my DAW to 2-track tape...I would want a pretty decent tape deck, as that is the final bit of processing on your mix...and you don't want the tape deck to degrate it, you want it to enhance it.
On the other hand...tracking to tape at the outset, you can get away with a greater variety of tape deck quality...because you're doing one track at a time, and you have more control over each track as it goes down...unlike the final mix.
IOW...at the mixdown stage whatever yo do, you wan to keep it subtle, and you have to be more careful because it's the stereo mix...so what makes the drums sound better my simultaneously kill the guitars...etc...etc.

So back to the VST thing...IMO...today there are some realty, really good plugs that will let you get that tape flavor, without rolling the dice on a deck...and many of the better ones were modeled after the kinds of tape decks that most of us only dream of owning.


That said...you should still get a deck and give it a whirl. Get the best you can...and see what comes out. If you don't get hard, sell it.
I'm not sure of your budget...but you can find decent 2-track and 4-track decks for a few hundred...forget that $ 3k CLASP system.
If you just use it to-from the DAW...you don't even need a mixer or any other analog stuff. Your interface can provide the connections to it.
If you want to track to tape...you go into the interface and take the Line outputs into the tape deck.
For mixdowns from the DAW, you just go Line outs the tape deck.
To go from the tape deck to DAW...you plug the tape deck's Line Outs to the interface Line ins...and to the DAW.

So you don't need a lot of other analog gear if you just want to mess with tape.

---------- Update ----------

Okay cool, so it sounds like there's no real benefit to mixing down to a four track tape machine that uses traditional 1/4 of the tape per track. Unless maybe someone want to add some hiss for a lo-fi sound, but short of that there's no artistic benefit to it, correct?

I would kinda feel that way...others may not.

I mean...if you just want some "tape sound"...try it out...,try any tape deck...try a cassette deck...whatever.
If you want a *2-track mixdown deck*...I would get a 1/4" 1/2-track that has some credibility in that area. A decent "broadcast" grade TASCAM or Otari will get you there...you don't need the real high-end stuff.

 

[famous beagle]

To be perfectly honest, I doubt that you will be able to tell all that much difference. YMMV

 

[miroslav]

To be perfectly honest, I doubt that you will be able to tell all that much difference. YMMV

Do you mean differences between tape deck types....or the difference between a DAW mix and a DAW mix that is dropped to tape?

 

[witzendoz]

My bands last album was mastered through a 1/2" 2 track machine (AMPEX ATR 102 If I remember right, there is actually a plugin around for this machine) and it really fattened the sound up, this was done at a mastering studio not my place.

I don't think there is much benefit of a cassette being used unless you want a grainy old fashioned noisy tape sound. However I did run a mix of a clients album to cassette as he only had a cassette in his car and he really liked the cassette version LOL.

Alan.

 

[Level Anything]

I don't know what type of music you play, but cassette 4-track and 1/4" reel to reel 8-track is where it's at in terms of character and soul, and all that other hard to describe stuff that makes a song great.

My opinion about analog, specifically recording to tape at the tracking stage, is that it pulls out a very unique performance from the musician that I prefer to digital. Recording to tape always makes me put my everything into each take because in the back of my mind I'm aware that I won't be slicing up different parts of 8 takes to create a comp etc. I personally work better with that mindset. After filling up the available tracks I dump it all into Pro Tools and sometimes add more tracks, edit, EQ, and mix. I think you might benefit from trying something like that out.

If yr interested in mixing down to a 1/4" reel to reel then honestly, that's a little trickier. Like Slav said above, it's pretty tough to find a well maintained and affordable deck that will give you the analog sound that everybody talks about. I've personally had terrible luck finding a good half track for under $500.

I've never seen the point of running a mix from a DAW into an old 4-track. As people have stated already, the magic happens when you hit the tape at the recording stage. I've tried running stems to my Fostex Model 80 and then back into PT and it always just threw everything off and was unpredictable.

I like the stew analogy.

 

[RFR]

I'm of a similar mindset.
Track to tape and squeeze every last drop of performance you can. Then dump to daw. No point in going the other way (daw to tape)

As to mixing to two track tape, I don't see the point unless you have a good machine. A really good one.

There are plenty of tape emulations, saturation plugs, and lo-fi plug-ins.

Why degrade a good mix by going to a cheap worn out machine.

 

[rayc]

I don't add seasoning, (salt & pepper), when cooking.
I don't use salt particularly because my wife would add a huge amount of salt to her meal BEFORE tasting and I, personally, don't put salt on anything on my plate other than roast potatoes.
Tape pulls a unique performance? - Well EVERY performance & recording is technically unique BUT if the gear was behind a wall and the performer didn't know what their performance was being recorded to I fail to see how there'd be any push or pull in terms of a different & truly unique run through.
Mixing a pre-master to 2 of 4 tracks in a cassette/portastudio will add whatever the preamps offer as well as whatever the noise reduction section does & doesn't manage to do. It'd have a different sound to the digital premaster and you or others may like it or not. Cool tape saturation isn't really a product of a portastudio and the limited tape width will mean a degradation in sonics but gain, you may like that.
I occasionally record to portastudio & then upload the tracks into Reaper. It's fun, it makes sense in terms of the automated mixing available in the box and does allow for more flexibility. I did find that there wasn't much affection for the result amongst the MP3 Clinic folk though.

 

[Level Anything]

"Tape pulls a unique performance? - Well EVERY performance & recording is technically unique BUT if the gear was behind a wall and the performer didn't know what their performance was being recorded to I fail to see how there'd be any push or pull in terms of a different & truly unique run through"

As we're on a site called Homerecording, I assume most of us know exactly what we're recording to and there aren't any walls up between us and our devices (hypothetical or otherwise). When I'm doing a bunch of takes on Pro Tools and then cutting them up to choose the best parts for a comp track, there is less at stake then when yr recording straight to tape and doing edits or punching-in is a lot tougher than digital. Of course there's a difference and "nailing the take" is more of a priority when you don't have such luxuries. Recording to digital and recording to tape are 2 different animals and there's a definite difference when you listen to the finished product of both methods.

 

[heatmiser]

...there is less at stake then when yr recording straight to tape and doing edits or punching-in is a lot tougher than digital. Of course there's a difference and "nailing the take" is more of a priority when you don't have such luxuries. Recording to digital and recording to tape are 2 different animals and there's a definite difference when you listen to the finished product of both methods.

Interesting discussion.

I would only offer that there is not necessarily much difference, or that there doesn't have to be much difference. You can self impose that same priority to your takes regardless of medium. Just because digital affords one the capability to more easily comp together multiple takes and make endless edits, doesn't mean that everyone does that.

I switched from tape to digital some years ago, but still approach takes pretty much the same.

Also, people were not able to distinguish when I switched from tape to digital, so the finished product is not necessarily all that different if the approach is the same imo.

Of course, I am not operating at a terribly high level or anything, so there may be a lowest common denominator thing going on there, but as you say, this is home recording.

 

[RFR]

I switched from tape to digital some years ago, but still approach takes pretty much the same.

I would dare say you are in the minority.
We live in an age of recordists who I call the nintendo generation. People that grew up in the gameboy and computer age.
Many record music without ever physically meeting their 'bandmates'.... well maybe thru Skype or facetime. But there is so much file sharing.
Many do everything themselves which is admirable.
But the concept of getting a well rehearsed band all in one room and then hitting record is foreign to most modern recordists.

I had a young man (early 20s) over at my studio yesterday . He's quite an accomplished engineer who is tied into the Christian music scene and very skilled in protools.

I thought he was going to piss his pants when he saw a tape machine and console and protools as well. It was foreign to him, but put him in a state of awe one would be in at a museum.

His world was a mac.

Working with tape is a different animal in so many ways. From the workflow to the cost of tape, to production decisions....etc, etc.

I've heard it said often times that the world of the daw can give you the disease of 'fuckarounditis' because of all the options.