Best way to intergrate protools and analog system together?

R

Rickson Gracie

New member
I currently have:

Tascam TSR-8 (recently serviced)
Tascam 1/4 inch half track (recently serviced)
Trident (Oram) T-8 console w/ meter bridge
various patch bays
Digidesign digi002r rack
Apogee Rosetta 800 DAC
2008 IMac computer loaded with RAM
Assorted tube mic pres (UA la-610, Sabatron 2 channel...etc)
Demeter RV-1 rack Spring Reverb
ADAM A7 powered monitors

Whats the best way to put this all together?

I am mainly interested in how to connect the T-8 mixer to the rest of the system? I got the T-8 mixer for the reputation of its EQs which would make mixing more efficient.

I ultimately want to mix down the the half track reel2reel but I am not sure if I should even bother hooking up the protools system. My heart is in analog.

I know there are people on this board that prefer a hybrid approach. While I dont want to abuse the editing power and use of plugins with protools It would make certain apsects of recording 'easier.'

I dont want to compromise the 'analog' sound.

Thanks
 
Rickson Gracie said:
I currently have:

Tascam TSR-8 (recently serviced)
Tascam 1/4 inch half track (recently serviced)
Trident (Oram) T-8 console w/ meter bridge
various patch bays
Digidesign digi002r rack
Apogee Rosetta 800 DAC
2008 IMac computer loaded with RAM
Assorted tube mic pres (UA la-610, Sabatron 2 channel...etc)
Demeter RV-1 rack Spring Reverb
ADAM A7 powered monitors

Whats the best way to put this all together?

I am mainly interested in how to connect the T-8 mixer to the rest of the system? I got the T-8 mixer for the reputation of its EQs which would make mixing more efficient.

I ultimately want to mix down the the half track reel2reel but I am not sure if I should even bother hooking up the protools system. My heart is in analog.

I know there are people on this board that prefer a hybrid approach. While I dont want to abuse the editing power and use of plugins with protools It would make certain apsects of recording 'easier.'

I dont want to compromise the 'analog' sound.

Thanks
Click to expand...

I think it would depend on the type of recording you are doing. If it were me, I would record to the TSR8 and stay analog throughout the process until the last point. Mix down into the PC (I'd probably skip mixing to 1/4 since you already tracked to tape on a somewhat narrow-format machine). I would try to mix to 16/44.1 and be done. No further digital processing beyond the initial conversion. If it needed tweaking, I'd remix.

Easier said than done - I know. You will probably need some type of mastering. But if you can avoid sample rate conversions, dither, additional processing, etc. you will retain as much quality as possible. I am slowly moving toward this approach myself.
 
I use a hybrid approach...track to tape or DAW...edit in DAW...using DAW as playback deck, I mixdown through an analog console & outboard processing to 2-track tape deck and then right back into the DAW.

The key is in how many A/D/A channels your converters support.

I have 24 channels of A/D/A...so during mixdwon I can pump 24 individual channels out of the DAW through my console.
The less D/A channels you have...the more you have to submix in the DAW.
 
No offense

No offense but, how in the hell do you have all of that high end equipment and not know anything about how you want to run it or how it should be set up?

I feel i must repeat myself, this is not meant to be offensive.
 
The Great Cobb said:
No offense but, how in the hell do you have all of that high end equipment and not know anything about how you want to run it or how it should be set up?

I feel i must repeat myself, this is not meant to be offensive.
Click to expand...

well, i just got the mixing board (after ordering it a year and a half ago!) at that time i was a 100% pure analog convert and hadnt planned om returning to my DAW setup.

Now a year and half later ive been considering integrating that DAW and want to hear others experiences. This revelation came from listening to some impressive sounding vinyl records (ive become a huge vinyl/hifi buff) that had a digital stage in their production.
 
leddy said:
... But if you can avoid sample rate conversions, dither, additional processing, etc. you will retain as much quality as possible. I am slowly moving toward this approach myself.
Click to expand...

Don't want to start a new thread on this not that big of a deal but any particular reason to avoid sample rate conversions?

Surely there is a benefit with say ripping a tape master onto 24/96 digital, fiddling around with it then putting it on a cd (16/44) rather than ripping off tape to digital at 16/44 and just leaving it like that.
 
There are a lot of folks on these forums and outside who will say that anything over 24/44.1 is pointless and that there's all kinds of science to prove it...though in some cases, the converters just sound better at one rate over the other because of their design target rate and on-board analog filters.

Of course...when you check out every known audio rag in print, just about every interview has some pro stating how much he really digs tracking at 24/192...or some such thing.
I have yet to read a single audio rag where ANYONE is suggesting to track at lower rates now that we have the 96 to 192 stuff. :D

I don't really want to get into one of those long debates...but I still track my critical stuff into the DAW at 24/88.2....though I will work with 24/44.1 for less important stuff.
I can hear a touch more depth and spread with the 88.2 rate on my setup.
 
Hmm interesting, however I too don't want to debate about the benefits of 192khz over 48khz etc.. but my question is simply addressing what Leddy said as I understood to 'avoid sample rate conversions'.
 
Chilljam said:
Don't want to start a new thread on this not that big of a deal but any particular reason to avoid sample rate conversions?

Surely there is a benefit with say ripping a tape master onto 24/96 digital, fiddling around with it then putting it on a cd (16/44) rather than ripping off tape to digital at 16/44 and just leaving it like that.
Click to expand...

There are many many threads already out there on this, and certainly no firm agreement. My ears tell me that the less digital processing you do (fiddling), the less damage you do to the file (quantization errors, alisaing, etc.).

If you have a room full of digital gear from Lavry, Crane Song, Weiss, etc. then you probably have less to worry about.

If you use cheaper digital gear, I'd keep processing to a minimum.

My $.02.

BTW:
Here's an interesting comparison of digital gear:
http://src.infinitewave.ca/
 
There are a lot of folks on these forums and outside who will say that anything over 24/44.1 is pointless and that there's all kinds of science to prove it...
Click to expand...

The thing I've found that seems often unaddressed in my limited reading on this is the work that gets done on the file after conversion. Nyquist explains why there is a rolloff cliff at 1/2 the sampling frequency so 44.1 should be fine right? But what I've found is that if there is going to be any intensive processing in the box I find that the result is better when I have an 88.2 or 96k file to manipulate and the papers I've read basically deal with the conversion from A to D and then *boom* the discussion ends.
 
Rickson Gracie said:
I currently have:

Tascam TSR-8 (recently serviced)
Tascam 1/4 inch half track (recently serviced)
Trident (Oram) T-8 console w/ meter bridge
various patch bays
Digidesign digi002r rack
Apogee Rosetta 800 DAC
2008 IMac computer loaded with RAM
Assorted tube mic pres (UA la-610, Sabatron 2 channel...etc)
Demeter RV-1 rack Spring Reverb
ADAM A7 powered monitors

Whats the best way to put this all together?

I am mainly interested in how to connect the T-8 mixer to the rest of the system? I got the T-8 mixer for the reputation of its EQs which would make mixing more efficient.

I ultimately want to mix down the the half track reel2reel but I am not sure if I should even bother hooking up the protools system. My heart is in analog.

I know there are people on this board that prefer a hybrid approach. While I dont want to abuse the editing power and use of plugins with protools It would make certain apsects of recording 'easier.'

I dont want to compromise the 'analog' sound.

Thanks
Click to expand...

OK this is what I'd do. Track, mix, master in analog and use the computer for checking your email. Really, if you still like analog do as much as you can with that and when it sounds good then convert to the comp.
 
I’ve always had a hybrid setup since integrating digital into my studio. I sync the analog and digital machines together along with vintage outboard MIDI gear. Often I don’t need digital tracks at all because 7 analog tracks and 16 MIDI (Virtual) tracks are plenty for my own stuff. I will bounce analog to analog to consolidate tracks but no more than one bounce as a rule. For example I may bounce tracks 1-5 to 7 or to 6 & 7 to preserve a stereo blend of those tracks.

When I do use my digital multitrack I lay the tracks to analog first and bounce them to digital track-to-track. Then I have the analog tracks free again. Everything, including digital tracks goes through the mixing console and is treated with outboard effects.

I master to ¼” half-track reel-to-reel and from there to digital @ 16/44.1 to an HHB CDR-850 Professional stand-alone CD recorder (IMO, the CDR-850 is one of the best ever made)

I avoid sample rate conversion like the plague, so no ITB for me as a rule.

So basically you can see I treat digital tracks the same as analog, bringing them into the analog realm through the console for mixing, processing and conversion. I’ve never used a plugin that can hold a candle to the outboard gear I have, so I don’t use them for anything serious.

Bit depths and sample rates for tracking is a whole ‘nother thread, but for me 24/48 is usually plenty. My original Echo Layla did 20/48 and even that was just peachy. I love the Echo Audio stuff, by the way. But again I don't use ITB tools, so I ignore most of the features others may think are important when choosing a DAW. It's got to do one thing... or more like not do one thing... it should not corrupt the analog goodness I started with. ;)

One note on something Leddy mentioned. I concur with most of his post except ½” 8-track is not narrow track, unless you also consider 2” 24-track as narrow track. They are roughly the same width on those formats. And the track width of a multitrack is typically narrower than the mixdown deck. When mixing down we are also “mixing up” to a wider track format.

:)
 
Beck said:
One note on something Leddy mentioned. I concur with most of his post except ½” 8-track is not narrow track, unless you also consider 2” 24-track as narrow track. They are roughly the same width on those formats. And the track width of a multitrack is typically narrower than the mixdown deck. When mixing down we are also “mixing up” to a wider track format.
:)
Click to expand...

Oops. I thought the TSR8 was 1/4" like the Fostex R8. Thanks for catching that.
 
miroslav said:
There are a lot of folks on these forums and outside who will say that anything over 24/44.1 is pointless and that there's all kinds of science to prove it...though in some cases, the converters just sound better at one rate over the other because of their design target rate and on-board analog filters.

Of course...when you check out every known audio rag in print, just about every interview has some pro stating how much he really digs tracking at 24/192...or some such thing.
I have yet to read a single audio rag where ANYONE is suggesting to track at lower rates now that we have the 96 to 192 stuff. :D

I don't really want to get into one of those long debates...but I still track my critical stuff into the DAW at 24/88.2....though I will work with 24/44.1 for less important stuff.
I can hear a touch more depth and spread with the 88.2 rate on my setup.
Click to expand...

If you read the white papers on Dan Lavry's site, you'll notice that he thinks 60KHz would be enough and that going to 192KHz is just hype and a lot of extra bits.

Personally, I find that my little Yamaha standalone can still sound OK running in 16 bit mode and it only does 44.1 KHz. But the choice to use it is based on convenience (either portability or the many cool features of the mixer.)

Cheers,

Otto
 
Personally, I find that my little Yamaha standalone can still sound OK running in 16 bit mode and it only does 44.1 KHz.
Click to expand...

This is the crux of this issue...in today's market, by nature, we (the consuming community) are more focused on numbers rather than real-world performance, and the marketing people know it! They love that the marketplace is a sucker for numbers!

Buyer beware: was your gear designed to look good (on paper and in appearance), or to perform well and reliably so? The digital age has ushered in a tremendous growth in the focus on numbers and (IMHO) it is a natural phenomenon because so many of us (myself included) lack the proper experience and training and equipment to really compare and hear what really works and sounds good when it comes to current and past market offerings. We want (I'm talking about myself here) or hope that the gear will make up for our ineptness and/or lack of other stuffs or skills.

The reality is that I DON'T KNOW. But there sure is a preponderance of people dicsussing pros and cons and opinions this way and that, and I have a hunch...just a hunch...that at least SOME of them haven't a clue what they are talking about, but it hasn't stopped me from chasing their words like a goofy puppy.

2 years ago I would have NEVER thought to consider a machine like my Ampex MM-1000. It is ungainly, somewhat clumsy and "crude". Its OLD, and on paper is not impressive when comparing certain specifications, but wow does it sound good. NO piece of gear will make a bad performance or bad engineering sound good, but I'm tellin' ya the Ampex sure doesn't get in the way, and maybe more. The input section on my Yamaha 01X sounds good and according to what's under the hood as far as preamps and converters it shouldn't sound better than other stuff in the rack but somehow I like it better. You'd probably disagree but that's the cool thing...my ears are attached to my head and my gear is in my rack and I like it. May you too have gear you really like and for cryin' out loud forget about the numbers...what a waste of time.

Hm. Sorry for the diversion.

I recently read frederic's avater slogan. I turn 40 this year...maybe I'm starting to become an "opinionated old fart" too...wait...I already was one...now I'm just acting more like one...
 
miroslav said:
I can hear a touch more depth and spread with the 88.2 rate on my setup.
Click to expand...
Depth and spread? Not wanting to start yet-another-sample-rate-debate, but those (assuming I am interpreting them with the same meaning, as they are rather subjective words and, to be honest, analytically meaningless) aren't the kind of benefits one would expect to hear from a higher sample rate. Depth as in low-end frequency response, dynamic range, or what? Spread in terms of stereo width, etc?
 
Last edited:
Sync up your Digi 002 / Pro Tools with a SMPTE / MIDI timecode unit, like the Phillip Rees TS1 (http://www.philrees.co.uk/service/ts1quick.htm) / Tascam Midiizer ect or any similar device by recording time code to track 8 on the TSR8. Pro Tools LE syncs to SMPTE MIDI code perfectly in my experience.

Use your DAW Pro Tools software for outboard MIDI tracks, software instruments, software FX (if you need them) record your main instrument & vocals on the TSR8, only use the DAW for extra transfered tracks from the TSR8 that need editing or background tracks / takes.

Run all the above tracks through your mixer & you have the best of analog & DAW, mix down to 2 track tape recorder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top