I hate my digital mixes!!!!

RFR

Well-known member
Tonight I came across a box of old cassette tapes I completely forgot about. Played them and went wow! Even on crap type 1 tape, they sounded light years better than any digital mixes I’ve done of the same exact tunes.
Back story.....
For the last few years I’ve been transferring my tape multi tracks into protools and reaper and although I’ve gotten some pretty good results.

Most my early recordings were done on a MSR16 16track half inch machine with a Tascam M520 mixing desk. Not too much for outboard gear.... A couple of Alesis quadraverb multieffects units, an Alesis compressor, a midi verb. Your standard prosumer gear that was practical, worked, but not stuff that would make anyone drool.

For mics it was mostly a bunch of 57s, 58s, an old pair of Teac pencil condensers, and the prize, my 70s AKG 414.

The live room was decent, and the control room, although smallish, had no parallel walls. But here’s the kicker..... zero sound treatment. No bass traps no cloud, not even foam.

We never got anal about anything. Just set up mics, recorded and mixed by ear. When it sounded good, and the cassette tape sounded good in the car, you had a winner.

All mixing was done by fiddling with knobs.

Now with digital, it seems I’ve gotten so anal. Paying so much attention to detail, playing with eq compression ect.

But compared to earlier all analog mixes (even 4 and 8 track cassette recordings)
All my ITB stuff sounds like shit. 😂

Either I was doing something right earlier on, or I’m doing something terribly wrong now. (Could be both)

Anyone else run into this?
 
I don’t have treatment in my room either. Nobody has commented on my recordings that I should get it. I’m lucky in that my room is oddly shaped and that the furniture really takes the reflections well, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RFR
They have a term for this: Paralysis by analysis. You get so caught up on all the things you can do, that you try everything. I've got 200+ plugins in Reaper, and I rarely use more than about 6 that I like.

If you took your current setup and just used the Quadraverb and the compressor, would it sound more like what you did in the old days? Limit your EQs to the 2 or 3 frequencies that you have on the 520.

If you transfer the tracks to digital, does it sound different from the original. In my experience, analog stuff captured to digital was indistinguishable from the original source, so that isn't the problem. But when you are missing the noise floor that you get from tape, and the limited dynamic range that you get from tape vs digital, I find I hear things that were buried under the tape. Granted, it's been almost 40 years since I've even listened to any 1/2" tape with dbx, but I've listened to many hours of cassette and 1/4" reel recordings and none were as pure as the digital.

Why not dump your digital recordings to cassette and see if it brings any of the "magic"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RFR
I'm like Rich. When I started with Reaper, I tried to keep it very simple as if I were still doing 8-track analog with minimal processing. Other than amp sims, I'm using maybe 3 or 4 FX - Reverbs; Compression; Para EQ. I want it to sound like I recorded to tape - without adding saturation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RFR
They have a term for this: Paralysis by analysis. You get so caught up on all the things you can do, that you try everything. I've got 200+ plugins in Reaper, and I rarely use more than about 6 that I like.

If you took your current setup and just used the Quadraverb and the compressor, would it sound more like what you did in the old days? Limit your EQs to the 2 or 3 frequencies that you have on the 520.

If you transfer the tracks to digital, does it sound different from the original. In my experience, analog stuff captured to digital was indistinguishable from the original source, so that isn't the problem. But when you are missing the noise floor that you get from tape, and the limited dynamic range that you get from tape vs digital, I find I hear things that were buried under the tape. Granted, it's been almost 40 years since I've even listened to any 1/2" tape with dbx, but I've listened to many hours of cassette and 1/4" reel recordings and none were as pure as the digital.

Why not dump your digital recordings to cassette and see if it brings any of the "magic"?
Very good points.

Yes, the paralysis term is apt. About 5/6 years ago starting to learn protools, I watched everything realizing I knew nothing. Right off the bat I knew this was a much different beast than tape. Couldn’t use my ‘ old tricks’.

I was an uneducated ‘newbie’ where previously I knew what I was doing.

Watched too many Warren Huart and pensados place videos and tried some of the tricks.

All earlier tape/board mixes were done to dat tape with the exception of the quick cassette ‘test mixes’, logic being that the digital duplicated exactly what I had mixed.
I find that to be true.

I still have all the exact analog equipment from yesteryear, but different space.

With PT I’m in the box

With Reaper, I’m running directly off of tape into a 16 channel ADA converter (A&H ICE16). I do my edits, and mix on the console . Those mixes are better.

Ive never tried taking the digital mix and putting it onto cassette. That will be an experiment.
 
Oh so much to say and so little time…

Random relevant comments in no particular order…

I find old stuff I recorded is a mix (no pun intended) of “huh…! That…that sounds pretty alright…how did I do that?” And “Oh…muh-gosh that sounds like ASS!” But I’m honestly surprised to find the many examples that really sound good enough to leave alone.

I’m currently function-testing a Tascam 688 I bought on the cheap…cleaned it up…needed a new capstan belt…but I think it’s 100% and it cleaned up nice. Part of my function testing on a device is to just track a song on it, just make something up on the spot, usually using bass…I have a whole collection of these songs now…anyway, I took an hour or so the other night and recorded something and it was right after that I read this thread. The thing that resonated with me immediately between the content of this thread and my experience tracking to analog using analog hardware was how much fun it was. You have to be familiar with the electronic source/assign switching matrix on the 688 to work efficiently on it, but it doesn’t take long to figure it out, and it was just fun twisting knobs and pushing buttons and laying something down on tape, and it sounds really nice. Yeah it’s always a challenge on a cassette 8 track, the edge tracks…but it doesn’t sound like you’d think cassette 8 track would sound. The 688 (and 644) have an advantage in sound quality with the mixing section because of that electronic source/assign matrix interface…the electronic switching avoids the often experienced scratchy/static-ey switching functions on older analog gear…cleaner signal path…but I’ve had this same experience with a 488, 488mkII and a 238. And here’s the thing…I find that with analog recording and traditional hardware interfacing it’s *easier* to get a good sound. Is it the format? Is it the more limited functionality? I think that’s some of it. I also think though the point about too many toys or options is a MAJOR distraction with pretty much any DAW, and the other thing that’s sort of alluded to in this thread is the visual piece. I was thinking when I’m working with the DAW I’m constantly looking at visual feedback, controls, parameters, scads of metering options, waveforms, etc. When I was playing with the 688 there’s relatively very little to look at…I feel like I was spending a lot more time listening.

I’m not knocking DAWs. And there’s plenty of analog hardware that’s also visually complex/distracting, and major label production studios whether audio or visual or both depend on the complex tools available in the box, but there is a lot of that that was created and is used to increase productivity in a world where time is very much still money. In my little studio that’s not the case.

Anyway I wanted to share these thoughts. YMMV, each to their own, you’re situation, experience and goals drive what you use. But…it was fun having a knob per control (with the exception of the source/assign matrix interface), and seeing with my ears more than my eyes. I have a Behringer X-Touch. This recent experience does renew an ideation I’ve had to define a more basic mixer in my DAW and save it as a template, and try and achieve being able to track small projects using the computer screens, mouse and keyboard as little as possible, just using the controller and capturing as much of that knob per function as reasonable. This would apply more during initial tracking and overdubs. I think, obviously, the mixing/editing/mastering stage would call for more interfacing with those typical computer HUIs, but I bet I would enjoy the process more and maybe have a bit more honest set of tracks to mix. I remember engineering/producing a couple full-length DAW projects years ago using an earlier setup…had a Yamaha 01X interface/controller and I got to the point of needing the mouse and keyboard very little…could make my way around the DAW nicely with just the controller, and I recall that being fun and satisfying similar to using the 688 the other night. But then sonically I remember frustration around trying to achieve the sound I heard in my mind and resorting to plug-in after plug-in and tweaking dozens and dozens of parameters repeatedly…spending hours and hours tweaking stuff…it was exhausting. It’s what opened my mind to trying analog again. And, for me, I was right, that (again, speaking just personally of my own experience), it was just so easy to get a sound I was happy with when using analog media and decent analog hardware.

Historically I’ve found tracks captured direct to digital lack a certain energy presence. This has changed as my interfaces have improved. I’m using a MOTU 8M now, and it sounds very nice. But, again, I was shocked at the ease of capturing something that sounded nice with the humble 688. My interface and DAW have, on paper, a much better potential for clean audio across a wider spectrum. But something gets in the way. It’s not the fault of the gear, it’s me.

I will say too part of the fun of the 688 was the mechanical ka-chunk of transport modes engaging, the sounds of motors, and the anticipation of waiting while winding tape.
 
Last edited:
The thing for me with tape, first and foremost, is that I LIKE it. Why?
I’d say two reasons. One, the sound.

Tape does have a pleasing desirable sound. Whatever the tape format. And I’d wager to say that’s not my own personal bias. The proof of that is the large tape emulation plug ins market. No one would bother developing them if that ‘tape sound’ wasn’t desired.

Two, to some degree I’m master over the format (to what’re degree)

But the thing is I understand it, know what to expect, know how to manipulate the medium to get the result I’m looking for.

I rule over it, it doesn’t rule over me.

This makes it fun!

Now In the digital world, I fully admit that I’m not master over it. It still rules over me.
Even though I’ve been at the digital game for 5 or 6 years now, it still kicks my ass.

Therefore it’s not fun.

I’m sure if I would master the craft I’d be better with it and like it more.


With tape, that journey started long long ago. From the first hand me down monophonic cassette player. Remember those? The joy of figuring out how to wire a guitar straight into the 1/8 inch mic jack.
And oh the excitement when I figured out how to wire external speakers to it and use it as an amplifier.

I think all of us tape heads started out with very humble beginnings, working our way up the ladder getting better and bigger tape machines

This made the learning curve much more gradual with lessons learned along the way.

Nowadays, a beginning recordist will have a first rig with massive amounts of bells and whistles.

Kind of like the kid who’s first motorcycle redlines at 13k and is capable of 200mph.

That’s a lot to deal with!

Anyway, just some musings.
 
I would ask: Does is actually sound better *sonically*? Or is it just more compelling/have more appropriate artistry to it?

The reason I ask, is because I’ve never heard a later remix by anyone that matches the original in terms of those elusive things like feel/vibe/mojo.

Part of what you are describing might even be the lack of formal “expertise”- unusual things done that those who “know better” would never have attempted … but may be more creative or interesting sounding.

I’ve toyed with remixing my old recordings in the past- but I’ve found I end up solving one set of problems by creating another. I could get them to sound “better” but not as “right”, if that makes sense. For this reason, I literally got rid of all of the multitrack masters- with no backup at all. All I have now are the original mixes. Basically to stop myself from ever going down that rabbit hole again. I prefer to work on things going forward.

My theory is that the mixes that were done closer to the original recordings have more of the “spirit of the moment” in which they were made. After all, mixing (especially in analog) is a performance itself. It could just be the original performances of those mixes just worked better- and trying to remix them might be similar to attempting to record the lead vocal or the drum track again, years later.
 
Last edited:
I would ask: Does is actually sound better *sonically*? Or is it just more compelling/have more appropriate artistry to it?

The reason I ask, is because I’ve never heard a later remix by anyone that matches the original in terms of those elusive things like feel/vibe/mojo.

Part of what you are describing might even be the lack of formal “expertise”- unusual things done that those who “know better” would never have attempted … but may be more creative or interesting sounding.

I’ve toyed with remixing my old recordings in the past- but I’ve found I end up solving one set of problems by creating another. I could get them to sound “better” but not as “right”, if that makes sense. For this reason, I literally got rid of all of the multitrack masters- with no backup at all. All I have now are the original mixes. Basically to stop myself from ever going down that rabbit hole again. I prefer to work on things going forward.

My theory is that the mixes that were done closer to the original recordings have more of the “spirit of the moment” in which they were made. After all, mixing (especially in analog) is a performance itself. It could just be the original performances of those mixes just worked better- and trying to remix them might be similar to attempting to record the lead vocal or the drum track again, years later.
There’s much truth in your response.

To address the first question, sound better sonically. I’ve had non musicians and musicians who weren’t recordings say the analog mix sounded better. This is in a blind test with them not knowing which was which. Now, granted this was a small sampling. Only 5 people, but 5 out of five picked the analog mix over the digital.

Regarding the artistry, yeah, doing an analog mix is a musical performance all on its own. It’s a dance and sometimes you need more than two hands.

In 5 years working with digital, all I’ve done is transferring, mixing and archiving previous works and the works of others.
Lots of stuff there.

I must confess, I’ve never recorded a complete song in the digital realm.

Possibly if the whole project was in digital I might be happier with my results.

Who knows :)
 
Back
Top