analog to digital problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dick Ward
  • Start date Start date
I don't bother with "punch-ins" as the way one would do a tradition tape punch-in.

I simply do takes...as in whole tracks. If I want to record a new section for say, Chorus 1...I'll still record a new take from the beginning and then play only when the Chorus 1 section comes up (the punch-in).

That way...lining up the tracks still takes place at the head..at the start of each track...instead of having bits-n-pieces of tracks.
It's a DAW, and most have a rather huge allowed track count...so it's no big deal to use up a whole track just to record a "punch-in" for Chorus 1.
Besides, once it's recorded, you can easily cut away what you don't want/need, and combine where applicable, if it's necessary to reduce track count or used up HD space...etc.

That makes a whole lot more sense rather than individual short punches. I suppose another alternative is to cycle record between punch locators on the daw (logic has cycle record and can create a new track each cycle). This way, you just let the tape keep recording while you are cycle recording on the daw. Then you can align all the different versions at once when done recording.

How do you manage the used tracks on tape and it's timeline since things may or won't be in order? Also, any issues with tape wear since theoretically, you can use one tape over and over again?
 
How do you manage the used tracks on tape and it's timeline since things may or won't be in order? Also, any issues with tape wear since theoretically, you can use one tape over and over again?

The whole idea is to simply use the tape as a real-time "effect"....rather than actually recording *to tape* where you would want the tracks in order, etc.

This is vary similar to what the "CLASP" tape/DAW system does...just "bounces" audio to tape, but makes no effort to keep the tape tracks in order, as the whole point is to get the effect of the tape on the audio...but it is the DAW that is the actual recording medium and the place where the tracks are organized and ordered.

Makes sense...?

Other than for my final stereo mixdown, where I send my stereo mix from my DAW through my analog console and analog outboard gear, out to my Otari 5050 2-track, and immediately pull the output off the playback head and record back into the DAW as my final stereo master....
...when I do my individual tracking, I still do that the old-school way. I record individual tracks on my 16-track, then dump the entire pile into the DAW.

Aditionally...I find that with my EMTEC/BASF 911 tape...I can do a LOT of RR/FW and Record/Play and I don't really hear any significant loss. I think after the first few passes, the tape settles in and pretty much stays consistent. The fact that I rarely see any kind of residue on my Q-Tips when I clean my tape path supports this belief, that the tape is not slowly "disintegrating".
 
Miroslav seems to understand most of the process.

However, you don't need any sort of click track reference at the beginning of a recording because with this method, no matter what you are recording or at what time you are recording it, all the tracks will be delayed by the same amount. So once you work out what the amount is (measure the distance between your record and playback heads then use some speed = distance over time calculations) you just write that number down somewhere and just remember after you record something to shift it back by x amount of milliseconds. That is why I say that there is no special case for punch-ins, punch-outs or full takes, they are all just as easy to do and use the same method.

Also, in terms of wear... you get a lot more wear on the machine and the tapes because, especially for me, recording say a 14 track song requires me to record on the tape 7 times (2 tracks at a time as I am using a Tascam 32) and that's if I get it all in one take every time.

And yes, the material on the tape is 'useless' as you generally record over it when you do the next take (unless you want to use 100 tapes for your session).

This method is suited for people that want to track to tape but then edit digitally, the benefits are that you get unlimited tape tracks (that is you can run as many tracks through tape as you want), you don't need 8 or 16 channel AD converters (expensive), you can use 1/4" tape (cheaper), you don't have to mess around with synchronizers and if you look at my case, I am tracking to tape that has a track width of almost 1/8" per track at 15ips which is even wider than recording 16 tracks to 2" tape (and cheaper)
 
I understand the process, but was more concerned on the wear and tear of the tape and machine.

To me, it doesn't seem suitable for punches though, as being the engineer and musician while recording the punching would seem like a tedious process regardless. Starting both DAW and Tape in record, re-align the track when done, do the next section, etc, etc. You have to align each punch track if you need to monitor your previous part(s), since you will need to know exact punch points. Tedious for experimental and "off" time tracks.

However, I'll have to give it try with cycle mode record in the DAW. That may be an option.

But let me ask this: I have a Tascam 38 and Tascam 42. Right now I use the 38 for tracking, dump to daw, mix down/master to the 42. The 42 is a much better built machine.

So for recording off the repro head method, besides cheaper tape, any pros/cons to using the 42 instead of the 38 for tracking?
 
(measure the distance between your record and playback heads then use some speed = distance over time calculations)

As with track drift over an entire song, speed is not a perfect constant here either, but the margin for error would still be way less.
 
Miroslav seems to understand most of the process.

However, you don't need any sort of click track reference at the beginning of a recording because with this method, no matter what you are recording or at what time you are recording it, all the tracks will be delayed by the same amount. So once you work out what the amount is (measure the distance between your record and playback heads then use some speed = distance over time calculations) you just write that number down somewhere and just remember after you record something to shift it back by x amount of milliseconds. That is why I say that there is no special case for punch-ins, punch-outs or full takes, they are all just as easy to do and use the same method.


Yes, you are right, you can "do the math"...I'm just one of those people that always uses a click track anyway.
 
I would maybe just get an 8 channel interface and transfer all 8 tracks at the same time into a DAW.
Or, since you are going to a studio anyway, just bring the 80-8 with you and let them transfer the tracks.
i had a friend who made a super sturdy foam lined wooden case for his deck, and he used it in the field for years.
Just strap it it a dolly, and watch out for the curb!
 
Yes this happens with all tape machines, because you are playing back each track separately, that would mean that the machine would have to playback at EXACTLY the same speed each time and this is impossible due to the mechanical nature of the machine.

There is nothing wrong with your machine in that sense, all machines will have this problem (some a lot worse than others).

You have to dump all 8 tracks simultaneously (using an 8 channel A-D converter) OR you can record off the repro head straight to the CD player AS YOU ARE TRACKING. Since your CD player is only two channel, this means that you can only record two tracks at a time using this method.

I have been using that method of sending the signal to the DAW straight from the repro head whilst recording to record whole albums and it works and all your tracks stay lined up.
How much do 8 channel A-D converters cost?
 
How much do 8 channel A-D converters cost?

Not much really. IMO two of the best 8-channel interfaces ever made were the first two Echo Layla models. The Layla 20-bit from 1998 and the Layla24 24-bit from 2000. They both have excellent converters, are made in USA and I've yet to hear anything new in the last decade that impresses me enough to use anything else. There are two things that can happen over time as technology evolves. 1) Real advancements and improvements in technology are made. 2) Companies begin outsourcing, cutting corners to save money and their older products are actually better than their current offerings.

IMO the Layla's were ahead of their time, and now they go for peanuts on eBay while people spend big bucks on newer products that to my ear don't measure up. Someone recently announced on another forum that they felt it was time to upgrade from their Layla24 to one of the newer Echo products. Why? My advice… if you have one of the original Laylas keep it, and if you already got rid of one because it was “old” my advice is to go to eBay or Craigslist and get one back before you can’t find them anymore. You can’t do any better.

Well there you go… a very specific opinionated recommendation. And keep in mind I’m an analog guy trying to maintain as much analog goodness as possible when converting to digital. ;)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top