Bouncing/Mastering with Cassette?

[Roozter]

Hey guys, I've been weighing up how soon I wanted to incorporate a 2-Track Reel to Reel in to my chain for mastering. In the meantime I have acquired an old TEAC CX-310 Cassette deck (Circa 1981?) and figured I could get some ideas on it just playing guitar and singing before I seriously record on the 80-8.

Since purchasing the cassette recorder I've started to toy with the idea of actually making it my "mastering machine" for the time being. I haven't been able to do much tinkering with it, but from my understanding it could essentially be set up for mixdowns by simply running my M-30's submix in to its Line inputs and the Line outs back in to the m-30 for monitoring purposes.

But my question is this: Could I bounce with the CX-310 just like I would a 2 Track Reel to Reel?

I would be recording from my Tascam M-30 to the Tascam 80-8, running the 80-8 back in to the mixer and then in to the CX-310, which would then be run back through the M-30 to the 80-8. I would only ever bounce once, since I wouldn't dream of ever getting anything decent after that.


I'm seriously interested in what kind of lo-fi sounds I could get out of this, considering most cassette recordings these days seem to be done on old portastudios. So please bear in mind before ripping in to me, that I am not after a hi-fi or "professional" sound. I am more interested in what all I could do with this cassette deck, and how its sound might interact with the sound of a "Pro-Sumer" deck like the 80-8.

At the very least Id like to use it as a way to get my final product on to a listener-friendly format (EDIT: Without ever going near anything digital, of course), or somehow alter it to make a sort of echo machine that I could lay over all my tracks during mixdown.

 

[A Reel Person]

Yes and No.

It could be used to bounce tracks out to as a destination device, then played back into the mixer/recorder. It could also be used as a "master" recorder for your final product, although I don't think cassette is considered "user friendly" these days. Both of these applications would be considered Lo-Fi.

With a 2 head design, I don't think there is any application for this as a tape echo, and I don't know of any mods that would make it so.

 

[Roozter]

It could be used to bounce tracks out to as a destination device, then played back into the mixer/recorder. It could also be used as a "master" recorder for your final product, although I don't think cassette is considered "user friendly" these days. Both of these applications would be considered Lo-Fi.

With a 2 head design, I don't think there is any application for this as a tape echo, and I don't know of any mods that would make it so.

My car has a cassette player in it, and once I can play it while I'm driving I'm pretty much satisfied. Also, many of the people in my area (its an artsy-fartsy kind of place) would be more impressed with me handing out cassettes made from an in-home analog studio than anything else except vinyl maybe. Its hipster central, so anything lo-fi is going to be welcomed with open arms. Also, eventually all my music will make its way to digital format, so all formats will be available for purchase.

My only other questions I guess is would you recommend I bring the cassette back through the mixer first, or hook it straight up to the 80-8? Also what kind of sound would you expect to hear on playback once I've bounced the tracks from the CX-310 to 80-8? I have a suspicion that there will be complications with the levels.

 

[A Reel Person]

Yeah

My car has a cassette player in it too, but it bit the dust about 6 months ago & I've not had the time or fortitude to pull it out of the dash & disassemble it on a fact finding mission. I'd assume it's rubber belt or idler related, but I already have enough unfinished fixit projects and the unit has an AUX IN jack that accommodates my iPod nicely.

You can probably run from the cassette outputs directly to the 80-8's inputs & bypass the mixer, as the 80-8 has input level controls on the front to cut/boost for any level mismatches,... of which I'd assume there would be none (other than a nominal level dropoff due to possible calibration issues with the cassette) because they run at the same line level.

However, if you run back thru the mixer it will enable you to color the bounce track again with EQ for effect & give you an opportunity to try to minimize any tape hiss incurred in the bounce.

Something like this bears out some experimentation.

 

[A Reel Person]

...

I think you'll lose some of the HF response (clarity) and headroom (punch) with the bounce to cassette, as well as picking up a slight amount of tape hiss. However, it should not preclude you doing this if your heart is really in it.

You may get a better result with an "internal" bounce from 6-tracks to 2 on the 80-8, but as with any internal bounce you will overwrite your primary tracks during the operation, which may be undesirable. You get to preserve the original source tracks with an "external" bounce, as you've proposed.

Many people would advise you to bounce out to your puter to a stereo wave file, then back into the 80-8, to preserve fidelity in the bounce. You're coming from, and going to analog in the bounce, so technically it's still all analog in the final product.

Beyond that, I'd recommend getting a 32 or 22-2 and do the bounce on 1/4" halftrack running @ 15 IPS to do an all analog bounce without losing fidelity. You're in that game for $150-$300, plus media cost.

 

[Roozter]

I think you'll lose some of the HF response (clarity) and headroom (punch) with the bounce to cassette, as well as picking up a slight amount of tape hiss. However, it should not preclude you doing this if your heart is really in it.

You may get a better result with an "internal" bounce from 6-tracks to 2 on the 80-8, but as with any internal bounce you will overwrite your primary tracks during the operation, which may be undesirable. You get to preserve the original source tracks with an "external" bounce, as you've proposed.

Many people would advise you to bounce out to your puter to a stereo wave file, then back into the 80-8, to preserve fidelity in the bounce. You're coming from, and going to analog in the bounce, so technically it's still all analog in the final product.

Beyond that, I'd recommend getting a 32 or 22-2 and do the bounce on 1/4" halftrack running @ 15 IPS to do an all analog bounce without losing fidelity. You're in that game for $150-$300, plus media cost.

My heart is currently set on either a 22-2 or a 3300SX 2T, leaning towards the 3300 for the flavor only, but definitely getting the 22-2 if I cant find a working 3300, as I do like the sound on that as well.

Also, I have no interest in preserving my original tracks at the moment, so an internal bounce may be what I need to make this work better. Id much prefer to have my scratch tracks on cassette for reference.

 

[A Reel Person]

...

With the internal bounce, just make absolutely sure you're happy with the "bounce mix", because once it's done and you proceed forward overwriting the primary tracks, there are no redo's on that. That's a big reason why an external bounce is deemed preferable, but then you're incurring an extra generation dub in the process & becomes more important to minimize loss and/or hiss.

Track bouncing schemes are handy to boost the utility of recording & something that probably everyone has used at one time or another. When the rubber meets the road, I think if track bouncing figures prominently into most of your productions, it's time to buy into a larger format, F/I, 16-tracks.

 

[lonewhitefly]

With the gear you've got, my vote would be to do your bouncing internally on the 80-8, and the final mix on the cassette until you get a open reel 2-track. There are lotsa different flavors of 'lo-fi' ... expect the cassette to add a sort of 'small', kinda saturated sound, with some high frequency roll off, a little bass boost, and a 'smeary' tone. Cassette is cool, but things can get ugly really fast.

If you do decide to bounce (sub-mix) parts to cassette, there is no reason to go back through the mixer again on the way back to the multi-track... just plug the line outs on the cassette deck to the line ins on the 80-8.

 

[Roozter]

With the gear you've got, my vote would be to do your bouncing internally on the 80-8, and the final mix on the cassette until you get a open reel 2-track. There are lotsa different flavors of 'lo-fi' ... expect the cassette to add a sort of 'small', kinda saturated sound, with some high frequency roll off, a little bass boost, and a 'smeary' tone. Cassette is cool, but things can get ugly really fast.

If you do decide to bounce (sub-mix) parts to cassette, there is no reason to go back through the mixer again on the way back to the multi-track... just plug the line outs on the cassette deck to the line ins on the 80-8.

Makes sense. Sad news though. It seems the pinch roller in the CX-310 is not working. Tried two tapes with no luck. I was able to move the roller myself, but its not functioning at all.

 

[A Reel Person]

...

So it goes with vintage recorders like this.

You might want to open it up and inspect/replace the belt.

 

[Beck]

Not to "Rip into anyone" ('specially on Easter) but I've never liked the term "Lo-Fi" as I see it used because if you really want Low Fidelity you have your choice of endless cheapo digital interfaces to get it. Cassette is actually capable of very high fidelity sound, depending on machine, tape and user. More so in home studio environments than anywhere else if used as your mixdown deck being fed straight from first generation multitrack. If cassette has a lo-fi reputation its because back in the day, by the time the music reached the cassette as the final end product it had been through many analog to analog transfers, many generations between it and the original source.

Yeah, you can use cassette, but we're not talking a difference between lo-fi and hi-fi sound here. That's a misconception. We're still talking the fundamental difference between digital processes and analog processes and the resulting sound we prefer. If you're truly getting lo-fi (poor) sound from a first generation cassette recording you need to work on honing your recording skills.

Well think about it... a first generation cassette is going to be more true to the source than a mixdown to even the finest open-reel machine and then to cassette because with the open-reel in between you're adding another transfer generation between the source and cassette.

And speaking of Easter, the fewer intercessors you have between you and God the better. You only need Christ. Start adding popes and priests and Pastors, elders, deacons, and "dear leaders" and it's going to fuck up your sound.

 

[Roozter]

Not to "Rip into anyone" ('specially on Easter) but I've never liked the term "Lo-Fi" as I see it used because if you really want Low Fidelity you have your choice of endless cheapo digital interfaces to get it. Cassette is actually capable of very high fidelity sound, depending on machine, tape and user. More so in home studio environments than anywhere else if used as your mixdown deck being fed straight from first generation multitrack. If cassette has a lo-fi reputation its because back in the day, by the time the music reached the cassette as the final end product it had been through many analog to analog transfers, many generations between it and the original source.

Yeah, you can use cassette, but we're not talking a difference between lo-fi and hi-fi sound here. That's a misconception. We're still talking the fundamental difference between digital processes and analog processes and the resulting sound we prefer. If you're truly getting lo-fi (poor) sound from a first generation cassette recording you need to work on honing your recording skills.

Well think about it... a first generation cassette is going to be more true to the source than a mixdown to even the finest open-reel machine and then to cassette because with the open-reel in between you're adding another transfer generation between the source and cassette.

And speaking of Easter, the fewer intercessors you have between you and God the better. You only need Christ. Start adding popes and priests and Pastors, elders, deacons, and "dear leaders" and it's going to fuck up your sound.

Beck, Its 4/20 and I'm a bit foggy. Please use layman's terms.

 

[miroslav]

Well think about it... a first generation cassette is going to be more true to the source than a mixdown to even the finest open-reel machine and then to cassette because with the open-reel in between you're adding another transfer generation between the source and cassette.

I don't disagree that there is another generation going from open-reel to cassette...but there's more to it than that, don't you agree?
Differences in electronics, track width, speed, machine setup capability.

The stereo mixdown/master is a key point in the whole recording process. When someone talks about a "master", it implies that copies will be made from that. I would think making cassette copies from an open-reel master will be much better than from a cassette master.
Now....if indeed it's going to be a one-off....just a single cassette master that will never be used to make more copies, then that's different.

Back in my 4-track days, I use to mixdown to a cassette, but that was my final copy. If I wanted more copies, I would actually do more mixdowns rather than copy off the cassette. Then I got my 2-track open-reel, and that made a noticeable difference, and allowed my to truly have "masters" that I could do multiple copies off of.

 

[A Reel Person]

Differences in electronics, track width, speed, machine setup capability.

My point exactly. Lofi to me (as used here) is more of a relative descriptor, not a derogatory term.

Back in my 4-track days, I use to mixdown to a cassette, but that was my final copy.

Except for the part about bouncing out to cassette & back to the reel, this is how I interpreted the OP's comments. Mixing down from the reel/mixer to the cassette, with each copy being a first generation final mixdown tape, & distributing those as his "product". It's not hard to do if you're methodical about it. It's not unreasonable.

 

[miroslav]

Oh I agree....it's not hard to do a first-gen mixdown over and over if you're only dealing with an 8-track multi.
You mark your changes, and just do the fader dance until you can repeat it over and over without noticable differences.

 

[gecko zzed]

but I've never liked the term "Lo-Fi" as I see it used because if you really want Low Fidelity you have your choice of endless cheapo digital interfaces to get it. Cassette is actually capable of very high fidelity sound, depending on machine, tape and user.

I agree. I've never liked the term Lo-Fi either. In fact, I have never been keen on the concept of deliberately making stuff sound worse than it need be. I also note that you can get lo-fi by reversing your specifications in the quote, e.g. "if you really want Low Fidelity you have your choice of endless cheapo cassette machines. Digital interfaces are actually capable of very high fidelity sound, depending on machine, electronics and user"

 

[miroslav]

...I have never been keen on the concept of deliberately making stuff sound worse than it need be.

I know what you mean....but I don't think that all of Lo-Fi can be looked at just from that perspective. Some of it is about the atmosphere it creates....like deliberately singing into a mic so that it and/or the pre distorts heavily in order to get the effect of strong intensity....or allowing hiss/clicks/pops in order to establish an old-school vibe that supports the song's theme....etc...etc.

IOW.....done "well", Lo-Fi can add to the mood of the song, but it's not just simply about using real cheap gear and consumer grade stuff. If you just that do that and don't have any intent behind it....yeah, then it comes off like you're making things sound worse than they need to be.

Generally....I tend to go for as polished a production as I can make it, even when I'm after a retro flavor...rather than simply to demonstrate severe equipment limitations without any intent. I don't see the point of that kind of Lo-Fi.
I already experienced plenty of that when I first started out and had limited options.

 

[gecko zzed]

I know what you mean....but I don't think that all of Lo-Fi can be looked at just from that perspective. Some of it is about the atmosphere it creates....like deliberately singing into a mic so that it and/or the pre distorts heavily in order to get the effect of strong intensity....or allowing hiss/clicks/pops in order to establish an old-school vibe that supports the song's theme....etc...etc.

I've used all those techniques as well. Curiously, I never thought of it as being lo-fi. I just thought of it more as 'special effects'. But I guess it is lo-fi. Maybe like adding a black and white grainy effect to a film clip to get an old look (which I've also done).

Generally....I tend to go for as polished a production as I can make it, even when I'm after a retro flavor...rather than simply to demonstrate severe equipment limitations without any intent. I don't see the point of that kind of Lo-Fi.
I already experienced plenty of that when I first started out and had limited options.

Yes to this. I've had plenty of experience in producing lo-fi results where this has come from the limitations of my gear and recording ability . . . even though the desire was for polished productions.

 

[Roozter]

So, the belt was straight up goop. Stuck to the flywheel. Just needs a cleaning, oiling, and a belt replacement.

EDIT: Cost of the deck was $25. Repair costs are going to be more than that probably. I hate when that happens.

 

[A Reel Person]

...

Most people here would buy the belt and replace it themselves. It could prove to be tricky, but is doable.