Half-track machine?

[WhinyLittleRunt]

I have been looking at the Tascam 22-2 and the 32 as potential mixdown decks to compliment the 38 I bought. I like the 32 but it's more than I want to invest, and the 22-2 is wicked cheap, so the question is, is it any good? If I've already been able to bounce a stereo track to and from the 38 (into DAW) is there really any benefit to even having a mixdown deck if it's all ending up in the computer anyway? I know half-track should sound better but in this case will I even notice a difference? I'm sure one of you guys knows what I'm asking and what I mean...

 

[Blue Jinn]

Well, the track width of a "half track" is going to be twice that of the 38, so you're going to get some advantage there, and you avoid a generation loss from bouncing. I have the four track version of the 22 series the 22-4. It is a nice machine. It is recommended for 1mil vice 1.5 mil tape, which I've had a harder time acquiring for some reason.

NOTE:There is some difference of opinion here in teh forum on whehter or not you should use 1.5mil tape with teh 22 series, but Teac recommended 1 mil.

I've seen some pretty decent deals on 32's though if you have a specific line on a 22-2 I'd say go for it.

I guess you need to decide if you want to mix to analog, or mix to digital. I've mixed to open reel and I've mixed to DAT, but either way I prefer to mix through the console rather than in software. I don't want to start an analog vs digital flame war with anybody, but my preference would be to mix to analog, and then copy that to the PC, and IMO you gain something from mixing first to tape.

 

[sweetbeats]

The 22 is similar to the 32 except there are some differences in the electronics and obviously the unit itself is smaller (the 22) and will only accomodate 7" reels, but I beleive the servo electronics and the heads on a 22-2 are the same as the 32 so in terms of how it handles tape and transfers flux to and from tape it is very similar which often makes the 22 a great deal...usually very affordable and a relatively compact case.

I can tell you after preliminary testing mixing down to my BR-20T I'm positive my preferred mixdown path will be multi-track --> halftrack --> DAW. It sounded so good. Much of that did disappear when converted to digital, but I haven't worked with it yet to see what I could do to change that and bottom line the program mixed direct to DAW didn't sound quite as nice to my ears as the one that went through the halftrack.

Personal preference, man. If able I would encourage you to try both and see what works for you. As for me and my mix, I will use the halftrack.

 

[jpmorris]

I mix to analogue for several practical, non-aesthetic reasons - firstly, if (when) the computer flips out during digitizing, I can just rewind the tape and try again instead of remixing it.
Secondly, if something better than 24/96 comes along later, I can re-digitize the master tape to the new standard.

 

[leddy]

Another tape stage could add more distortion and/or hiss. I think tracking to tape and mixing to digital would provide the best of all worlds.

 

[sweetbeats]

I don't know what it adds...don't care because all it sounds like is deeper, wider and more present...if that's hiss and distortion I love it.

 

[WhinyLittleRunt]

I did find that dumping a digital file to the tape and back again definitely added something to it but it doesn't always mean it's good Like for example, the file I sent to tape was totally mixed in the box, and it already had that pop-like bright sound, so when it came back from tape it just sounded lo-fi but didn't really work with the track... I have a lot of experimenting to do. I figured the more I can stay analog the better and then bounce to a half-track and then to the DAW and just capture the stereo track for final digital "mastering" and output is as a file so the rest of the itunes world can hear all your hard work

 

[sweetbeats]

My testing was with a 100% ITB project...just dumping the stereo program to tape and monitoring off the repro head in real-time...that way I could switch back and forth between playback of the digital track and the half-track-ized version. It was night and day. Granted it is all going to depend on the gear and its condition as well, but that was my experience.

 

[leddy]

I don't know what it adds...don't care because all it sounds like is deeper, wider and more present...if that's hiss and distortion I love it.

If it sounds good it is good.

I think the maximum benefit of using tape happens at the tracking stage, where you can select how hard to hit the tape track by track. Once you have that, hitting tape again may make it better or worse - and I think it would depend on the material recorded. If you track with tape but have to go digital eventually, that 1/2 track stage is optional, and the decision can be made by the taste of the artist or engineer. That's cool.