Z
zorf
New member
As opposed to cd burner, interface, etc.
If so, do you feel it adds something ( besides a little bit more noise)
If so, do you feel it adds something ( besides a little bit more noise)
lonewhitefly
Active member
hey man!
I think this is a really important element. I believe mixing to tape is what gives that final 'finished' sound.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I do all the time...but it's much more involved than what I think you are asking.
I think you are asking is how many mix from their DAW by just sending the *DAW stereo mix* out to a tape deck....yes?
That alone isn't going to do much, if anything at all.
The way I mix is to take all my individual DAW channels/tracks and bring each one out individually to an analog console. Then I mix at my console (not in the DAW) and I use all analog outboard gear (not plugs) and then I send that out to a 2-track mixdown tape deck. I then take the output of the tape deck back into a DAW and end up with a digital stereo mix with which I can do some touch-up mastering and final burn to CD.
And yes, this does a lot to the sound, and IMO it's mostly all good.
lonewhitefly
Active member
no, I think he's mixing from a 388, not DAW
F
fstrat76
Member
I do it both ways. Even with a DAW stereo mix, if you push the tape some, it will definitely come out surprisingly good. Pushing all tracks out to an analog console then to tape is best but that may require more outboard gear (especially compressors) than I can afford for each track. For me it depends on the song and effects needed.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Mmmm...yeah, I just wasn't sure what he meant, since most folks are doing it ITB these days.
I've done it a few times...dumping a stereo DAW mix out to tape for that "tape sound"...but it's not much of a "WOW" moment. IMO, if you are going to look for analog sound, it has to happen 1.) in the summing, as that is where everything really "gels", at the console, and 2.) like you say, it's also about the outboard gear, not just the mixdown tape medium.
I mean, yeah, just the 2-track tape deck will do something to the sound...but it's just a small portion of the process.
jpmorris
Tape Wolf
I've always had trouble with 2-track machines for some reason, but I cherish the idea of being able to re-digitize the 2-track master in some future format. If I mixed to CD or even 24/96 that wouldn't really be possible. (Though realistically? I'd probably remix the album anyway...)
EDIT: Where it does save my bacon is when the digitizing blips or drops out. With the tape, I can rewind and do it again. With a mix to digital, it's screwed.
EDIT: Where it does save my bacon is when the digitizing blips or drops out. With the tape, I can rewind and do it again. With a mix to digital, it's screwed.
B
Beck
Guest
Yes, I normally do as a matter of course. You'll find many engineers have gone back to analog for mixdown and/or mastering for many years now even if tracking is all done in digital. It may be the only analog thing in the studio for some, but better than nothing IMO. Sometimes someone has already said how I would describe the benefits, so I just quote them...
"If you want my advice, with all the available digital technology you still can't beat the sound of a good analog mixdown.... The effect on your sound can be dramatic. With an analog mixdown, you have a much wider, deeper sound with greater stereo imaging. An analog mixdown has a texture that digital cannot produce. And, simply put, to my ears it sounds better ... that's it. No more explanation needed."
--George Graves, Chief Engineer - Lacquer Channel Mastering, Toronto
"If you want my advice, with all the available digital technology you still can't beat the sound of a good analog mixdown.... The effect on your sound can be dramatic. With an analog mixdown, you have a much wider, deeper sound with greater stereo imaging. An analog mixdown has a texture that digital cannot produce. And, simply put, to my ears it sounds better ... that's it. No more explanation needed."
--George Graves, Chief Engineer - Lacquer Channel Mastering, Toronto
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Funny...I was talking to the guy I got my MX-80 from this weekend, and while we both agreed that digital has it's uses, I was pretty much saying the same thing to him word-for-word. I can take my digital tracks and listen to them in the DAW and they sound decent, I'll usually do a rough mix in the DAW just so I can hear them somewhat correctly while I'm doing edits/comps....but then, I take those same tracks, run them out of my converters one by one into my analog console, and before I make any changes at the console or with outboard gear, the mix already sounds "bigger"...wider, taller, deeper stereo image.
It's the same tracks, the same monitors...I'm just pipping them out of the DAW and into my console, and I already like how much better it sounds.
Another anecdote....
I've recorded other folks a few times to my 1/2" 16-track....played them back some rough mixes from the tape through the console. Then I dumped into the DAW to just clean things up a bit and whatnot, and had them listen while in the DAW, and the comment was that it didn't sound the same.
So while I have no desire to get into analog=good, digital=bad debates, as I do feel digital has it's uses and can sound pretty decent if you get things really right at the front end and then again at the back end....there's no denying IMO that people seem to find analog more.....pleasing.
Z
zorf
New member
Just to clarify,
I've been recording on the 388 and mixing through to my laptop as a mixdown deck.
no editing or processing.
Wondering if i should get a mixdown deck again.
anybody feel like you need the glue if you are already recording on tape and summing through the board
to a two track buss? ( or in my case, often mono)
I've been recording on the 388 and mixing through to my laptop as a mixdown deck.
no editing or processing.
Wondering if i should get a mixdown deck again.
anybody feel like you need the glue if you are already recording on tape and summing through the board
to a two track buss? ( or in my case, often mono)
B
Beck
Guest
Yeah, I think so. Well, think about it... name a classic song you like and it was probably mixed and mastered on analog half-track, either 1/4" or 1/2". Generational loss in analog is overrated as a concern. You might be surprised how many analog generations things went through before final product. Blending everything to analog tape gives a different result. Of course if you’re mixing to mono you’re not worrying about the stereo field.
lonewhitefly
Active member
I consider mixing to analog to be equally essential.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I agree.
The main reason a DAW even works for me is the fact that I can mix back out to analog and use all analog outboard...not to mention that I'm tracking in analog too.
Also, I don't think I would have as much fun and enjoy the whole recording process if I did it all ITB...and that's not saying people can't get good sound doing ITB, I'm just saying there's a lot of pleasure in watching the reels go 'round and having real gear and knobs-n-faders...etc...etc.
It's a shame that decent analog gear is so much more expensive than it's so-called digital counterpart or that R-to-R decks are no longer made and at a competitive price to say...a really decent DAW rig. If that wasn't the case, I think a lot more of the ITB folks would understand and enjoy tape and analog gear as much as we do.
Granted...it's not for everyone, and yeah, real gear requires real care and maintenance, and a greater commitment than a computer with a bunch of files...so it still wouldn't be for everyone, but it really is just so much more fun than doing it all ITB.
I know some real hardcore geeks will disagree and say computers, mice and keyboards are more fun.
O
ofajen
Daddy-O Daddy-O Baby
Yes, I mix tape tracks through a small mixer to the M-23 2-track. Actually, coming from the mix off the 1/2" 8-track, with no noise reduction, mixing to the 1/4" 2-track doesn't increase the noise level much. What it does do is give me a good analog style mixdown machine that sounds great and where worrying about catastrophic distortion from digital "overs" is not part of the equation while mixing.
Cheers,
Otto
F
fstrat76
Member
After transferring 7 or 8 analog tracks to daw, the only other advantage the daw gives me, besides editing, is the use of extra compressors added on a track and some automation before piping each track out to the analog mixer then to tape. Would be great to have an arsenal of compressors but that's just not feasible for me right now. I like to have different mixes of songs and resetting and remembering fader movements without painstaking documentation or an automated mixer is near impossible for me since it takes me months to mix a song or two.
If it weren't for these things, I probably would not even use a daw except as a backup mechanism.
If it weren't for these things, I probably would not even use a daw except as a backup mechanism.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Yeah, but editing and track comping is such a HUGE advantage of using a DAW, that I don't see it as a negative having to stick a DAW in-between an analog front and back end.
Yeah, some folks think that keeping it "all analog" is some kind of "badge of honor" or something...
...but I don't think anyone here can claim to be THAT great a singer/player of everything they do, so that all their analog tracks are perfect enough and would not benefit from some edits and/or comps. 
Using a DAW for those things can only improve the final product...and you still get to track and mix in analog if you like...so it's the best possible scenario, the hybrid setup, IMO.
Certainly you can do "all analog" and be satisfied with the overall quality and/or learn to accept the little quirks/mistakes that occur. Sometimes they do add to the sound and it's a worthwhile trade-off keeping them in.
Then there's the "spontaneity" argument...which is valid only if you are able to lay down near perfect tracks in the first couple/three takes, otherwise beating on a track for 80 takes trying to get it perfect because you don't want to edit/comp in a DAW is IMO a pretty silly way to record. I would rather drop 2-3 almost perfect takes, and then edit/comp them in the DAW and truly end up with a perfect take and in much less time than re-tracking/punching in for 80 takes. There's no "spontaneity" in doing 80 takes and lots of punch-ins, or claiming some sort of victory, just to keep it "all analog".
I think having a full band on-tap, where each person is playing their part and doing what they do really well, is a more realistic reason to go all-analog, but even then, you have to accept some quirks/mistakes and find the point of diminishing returns AFA the number of takes you do. This is why in pro studio circles there are often session musicians brought in to get the critical stuff done because even some of the bigger artists out there are not perfect with everything they do and/or they need to do it more quickly and in a controlled environment.
Anyway...I like the "all analog" concept and have done it and will do it again now that I have a 24 track deck, 'cuz with 16 tracks or less there just weren't too many productions I could do the way I wanted, so dumping to DAW made it possible...
...but that said, I really don't see the "all-analog" (not using a DAW for edits/comps) as some kind of "victory"....I rather see it as learning to accept some quirks/mistakes...which is OK, they can be good sometimes, but when they are not, it's a PITA working with that limitation, which IMO is why so many studios have practically abandoned their tape decks...or they track with them and immediately dump into a DAW....then from the DAW they can choose to mix ITB or back out analog.
John Truman
New member
I love mixing to 1/2" and 1/4", but machine alignment and tape cost issues prevent this from being the norm nowadays...
M
mdainsd
Member
Mix analog mix down tonite. But Im in uncharted territory for me at least.
Im working with a band that is about ready to record their first albumn. The plan was to go to a couple of rehersals and capture a scratch track, mono at that. I did that for them. T
Hat got done using a battery powered Nagra and one mic. The plan still is to dump that recording onto an edge track on the multitrack, then they will individually come in and lay down their parts on as many tracks as necessary.
But in the midst of the process they heard the Nagra scratch track and they like the "sound" which is abysmal. It really cant be anything else: reording a black metal band in a garage with one mic.
Skip to today...they have requested another Nagra session this time micing guitar, bass, vocal and drums with a mike each. Ive never done this before, meaning i have to mix and eq to final mix down in one process. I dont see why it cant be done, but im pretty sure it will still sound terrible, but its what they are asking for.
I guess if nothing else it will net a slightly better scratch track to use in a more tradition recording/mixing sessions.
And by the way any suggestions on a little 4 to say 6 channel mixer? I have no intention of de-desking my 32 wide mixer to haul around...
Im working with a band that is about ready to record their first albumn. The plan was to go to a couple of rehersals and capture a scratch track, mono at that. I did that for them. T
Hat got done using a battery powered Nagra and one mic. The plan still is to dump that recording onto an edge track on the multitrack, then they will individually come in and lay down their parts on as many tracks as necessary.
But in the midst of the process they heard the Nagra scratch track and they like the "sound" which is abysmal. It really cant be anything else: reording a black metal band in a garage with one mic.
Skip to today...they have requested another Nagra session this time micing guitar, bass, vocal and drums with a mike each. Ive never done this before, meaning i have to mix and eq to final mix down in one process. I dont see why it cant be done, but im pretty sure it will still sound terrible, but its what they are asking for.
I guess if nothing else it will net a slightly better scratch track to use in a more tradition recording/mixing sessions.
And by the way any suggestions on a little 4 to say 6 channel mixer? I have no intention of de-desking my 32 wide mixer to haul around...
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
M
mdainsd
Member
yeah, what we dont have in technique we will overcome with speed and volume!!!