2 inch reel to digital then to a portastudio

[Augustus]

Hello fellow Audiophiles! I just recorded at a local college here on a 2 inch reel. The school needs bands to record so we got to do it for free. The downside is that the students, under supervision, record us. This place has REALLY nice gear. I'd say its professional quality. They gave us the digital tracks and I uploaded them into my computer to mix and such. The problem I'm having is that the sound from the tape is just so damn clean and crisp. They didn't get the tape warmth and compression that was so appealing to us to track there in the first place. So what I'm doing now is running the stereo mix from my computer through a tascam 8 track portastudio 1/4 inch tape machine. More precisely, I'm trying to hit the tape as hard as possible with out harsh clipping. Once it clips I back it off a bit. It's helping a bit but not as much as I'd like.

Has anyone done something like this with success? My last question: I have some more studio time at this college in a large room with an organ, grand piano, and several isolation booths. Is there something I should tell the students that could help me communicate how to get this tape compression? Thanks in advance! Happy tracking!
-Augustus
Ps. You can check out the tracks on myspace here.
www.myspace.com/thehypnotistcollectors.com

 

[miroslav]

2 inch reel to digital then to a portastudio

FYI...the "harsh clipping" is probably the cheap electronics of the portastudio...not the tape.

You may think it's an imporevment to bounce it to the portastudio (even without any clipping)...but that's like wiping your windows with a muddy towel.

 

[A Reel Person]

...

The 388 will not accommodate levels that cause tape compression well unless the dbx noise reduction is switched off, but then you're inviting tape hiss back into the mix.

 

[The Ghost of FM]

Augustus,

The normal way to warm up a digital recording is to run it through a 15 or 30 IPS 1/2 track stereo mastering recorder without noise reduction, as hot as possible signal-wise before audible distortion is heard.

The reason why you want to use this format instead of an 8 track quarter inch deck is that you always should mix upward fidelity-wise before you mix downward.

If the 2" tape's warmth disappeared in the digital transfer, it's probably because they were using a sub-standard digital format and questionable quality analog to digital converters in that crucial stage. If they had gone with a higher end 24/196 platform with pro quality A/D converters, and if you had a properly calibrated room and monitoring system in which to mix it, you'd probably not need to do this "hamburger helper" stage that you're asking about.

Also keep in mind that even with the best gear in the world, if you only have students running it, odds are they aren't going to produce anything that would keep Mutt Lange up at night, worrying about his job security.

Cheers!

 

[sweetbeats]

What was the make of the 2" machine?

 

[lonewhitefly]

analog tape machines are supposed to sound clean and crisp ... that was the design goal anyway! tape compression doesn't just automatically happen, technique is required. there are various possibilities as to why its clean and crisp. i would guess maybe they are using high output tape and recording at conservative levels ...

if you are using a 388, you could try turning off the dolby NR (already mentioned) and hitting the tape hard but i would not just bounce the stereo track through there, if you're gonna do that, you may as well use cassette. there is something about going from digital to analog and back to digital that doesn't sound quite right in my experience, but i'm sure that is dependent on many factors.

in fact, going to cassette and back would probably get you closer to what you're after to begin with ... in addition, you may wanna just start over on a cassette 4 track and do lots of bounces.

if i were in your position, i would just start over and track to the 388 and then mix to cassette or another reel deck and avoid the computer altogether. lots of great albums have been cut on a 388.

 

[lonewhitefly]

oh, i realized i didn't answer your question ...

you could try telling them to use lower output tape like quantegy 406 (if you can find any or they have any) and record the levels in the red on the tape machine. also, use alot of compression and mix to tape. i think a lot of the "tape sound" comes from the mixdown, not from the individual elements as much (maybe drums).

another thing, i second what was said about "downgrading" quality. i tried mixing to cassette for a bit but ultimately end up dissatisfied. i think i know the sound you're after and it comes from mixing through an analog compressor to 1/4" tape running 15 ips to lower output tape. that's the '60s sound anyway.

 

[Augustus]

Thanks for all your feedback! The eight track I'm using is a tascam 488 MKII. Is this model inferior to the 388? I'm beginning to think the best way to fix this would be to forget the tascam stage altogether and throw down some bread for a professional mix. I underestimated the value of a good mix and I tried to do it myself.

 

[lonewhitefly]

i think the 488 is a cassette, the 388 is superior but not at the level of a 2" machine etc. mixing is tough work but something i'm sure you could learn.

 

[sweetbeats]

488 = cassette 8-track with integral 4-buss mixer
388 = 1/4" open reel 8-track with integral 8-buss mixer

What make and model 2" system was used for the original tracking?

 

[Augustus]

Here is the equipment list of the room we used:

48 channel Neve VR
Martin Sound Flying Faders and Recall
Studer A827 Analog 2 Inch MTR
Mac Pro and ProTools HD (24 tracks)
Large Tracking Space and 1 Isolation Booth
Video Projection
Meyer Sound main monitoring system
Yamaha NS-10 nearfield monitors
Audio patching to all classrooms/labs/studios

Purpose/Experience
Music Recording and Mixing
Host of outboard time based and dynamics effects from Lexicon, TC Electronics, and DBX
Synchronization
***

So I figured something out last night. I could quite put a finger on what I didn't like about the mixes. Well, the instructor of the class did the digital transfers for me and he gave me all the tracks with the tempo slowed to a good 20%!!! I'm kinda embarrassed I didn't catch it sooner. So now I'm definately keeping with my original plan and running it through the 488 and, in the process, speeding it up back to its original tempo. It sounds soooo much better! Still a bit crisp for me, but it sounds like my band! Yes!

 

[miroslav]

48 channel Neve VR
Studer A827 Analog 2 Inch MTR
Mac Pro and ProTools HD (24 tracks)

.....................


I'm definately keeping with my original plan and running it through the 488.....

Somebody pinch me...tell me this is just a bad nightmare.

Neve/Studer/ProTools....and then to "improve" the sound...a 488 portastudio cassette deck?!?!?!


Sorry....not sure what you are hearing and how you are listening to it...the MySpace mixes sound kinda murky...
(maybe post up the pre-cassette mix, not sure what-is-what on your MySapce page)...
...but that's gotta be the most bass-ackward thinking and recording process I've ever seen....but you go for it.

 

[Augustus]

I'm not an engineer, a mixer, a producer. I'm a musician and songwriter. I have no idea how to do this stuff, on a professional level. I have to use what is available to me. The digital mixes were given to me, slowed down 20%. The original reel is wiped by now. I tried to speed up the mix in the digital, but I don't know how, in my old software(PC Logic). If I knew what I was doing, I'm sure I could mix these songs and I wouldn't have to post stupid questions on here.

But yeah, everyone makes music differently and we all have ears for different sounds. All I can say is that what I've been doing is sounding the best to me so far. Do I have a thousand dollars to pay someone to mix? I wish.

 

[sweetbeats]

Your questions aren't stupid IMO...you just have to undertand that the equipment used to track the project is kind of in holy grail territory, so the issue is kind of obtuse.

I dunno. If you like what's going on with the remixing more power to ya...you'll know if other people like it too...if that matters. No reason you can't do WHATEVER you want if its for you...even if it is for others, but they may not like what you like and that's just the way it goes.

I see Neve and Studer and I figure I'm in the wrong room...though I really like what's in MY room.

 

[miroslav]

... the equipment used to track the project is kind of in holy grail territory...

Or another way to put it would be "equipment to die for"!

Augustus…

How did you come to the 20% figure...?
Is that your best estimate...or is that mathematically accurate?

Reason I ask...it sounds like a sample rate mix-up between 44.1Hz and 48Hz...and if that is the case, it's easy to correct. Find out what sample rate they used to create the digital transfers, and then just set your DAW to the same rate.

A straight transfer from tape to digital will have NO affect on the BMP...unless someone accidentally turned the tape decks pitch control prior to transfer...but not very likely if they knew what they were doing.

I really think they gave you digital files at one sample rate, and you are playing them at a different sample rate, and the 44.1/48kHz mix-up has happened way too often to many people...but it’s a simple fix without getting into pitch correction or speed changes within the actual mixes.

Are you following?

Check that out and get back...then we can talk about your crazy portastudio idea some more.

 

[Augustus]

I talked to the professor who did the digital transfers and thats exactly what happened. I imported the tracks using 44.1Hz. I spent a lot of time mixing the three songs at the slowed down speed.

Yesterday I tried to convert the entire mixes to 48Hz without success. I'm using logic 5.5 for PC. There is a tab for sample rate and when I try click on the 48k, the tab closes and nothing changes. The checkmark is still on the 44.1. Anyone have any clue? Also when I try to convert a single track that is unmerged it throws things out of wack. Some parts are convert and some aren't. When I merge them first to convert, the sample rate automatically changes to 44.1 but doesn't change the tempo..... I'm confused.

So what I think I'm going to do is start completely over and import the tracks using 48k and remix everything a second time. This way I can mix the songs while listening to them at the correct speed.

Some issues I will have, I sure, is how to mix and leave room for the mastering step. By this I mean the levels of the stereo mix, and if I should compress at all before the mastering stage. I have a friend with a 1/2' reel to reel. He said I can boost the final mix on the tape so I can get that sound I'm looking for but I may not need it in the end, especially if I can get good mixes. By what you are all saying, the equipment we used to record shouldn't require anything else.

Thanks to everyone for your help. This process has been a headache. I realize how much recording is a whole different art form.

 

[miroslav]

So what I think I'm going to do is start completely over and import the tracks using 48k and remix everything a second time. This way I can mix the songs while listening to them at the correct speed.

Some issues I will have, I sure, is how to mix and leave room for the mastering step. By this I mean the levels of the stereo mix, and if I should compress at all before the mastering stage. I have a friend with a 1/2' reel to reel. He said I can boost the final mix on the tape so I can get that sound I'm looking for but I may not need it in the end, especially if I can get good mixes. By what you are all saying, the equipment we used to record shouldn't require anything else.

YES...forget all that re-sampling crap up to 48kHz.
Import the tracks at the correct sampling rate --- 48kHz

Since you already did some mixing...it won't be hard to redo as you know the moves/choices you made.

For the mixdown…try hitting the ½” tape deck and bringing the output from the playback into your DAW as another stereo mix. You will have a pure digital stereo mix and the one that hit the tape….and then compare
AFA mastering....listen to what you are getting back off the tape mix before you decide on any mastering. You may not need to do much if the mix is done well and if you use the tape deck at its optimum levels…as the tape will help “fuse” the mix and also impart some of that flavor you are seeking.

That's a MUCH better choice than going to a port-a-potty.

What kind of ½” is it?