interested in buying a teac, but how would I integrate it with my needs?

[hithere1]

I have A LOT of questions about how it would be patched and how the whole thing would work and integrate for my needs in general.

I am 21, a big fan of analog recordings and have done extensive recording work digitally. I am not an engineer per se, but have been recording myself and working in studios since I was 13.

Aesthetically I am trying to get away from some of the more modern ways of life in all areas, social networking, constant cell phone use, always having the laptop on.

I do use a patch bay a bit in my audio class, but for the most part am only used to working with a interface and logic on my macbook, so my understanding of how this setup would work JUST mixing on tape/USING a computer somewhere in the process is basically non existent.

so here are some questions for anyone who would be kind enough to give me some basic insight

1. When dumping the tracks into a Daw, I understand you would play each track seperately? In this case wouldn't your AD/DA converters have to be Top Notch to really get the full effect? I assume you would somehow patch it from the tape machine to your interface?

2. I can see how a mixing board would be used going into the tape machine, but I have no understanding of how you would be able to actually mix each track separate after the fact, and use the faders and eqs

3. How could I integrate this setup with say drums being recorded at a studio, and me laying down some electric guitars and vocals at home? Could I somehow sync it with a computer playing the drum tracks etc?

I am so interested in the workings of it all, and have 0 experience even touching a tape machine, and most likely will order the TEAC just to try it out for fun, even if I flip it.

I am in the process of recording my album right now and booking the dates at a studio, but it would be really interesting for me to just get the drum tracks done at the studio (digitally probably...) and then work on a lot of it at home with the tape machine. The studio does have a tape machine, so they could probably dump the stuff, with their superior Apogee AD/DA

sorry this is so long and probably a little confusing but a lot of my recording peers of my age really only know digital and don't have a lot of these concepts down

thanks!

 

[jpmorris]

Bear in mind that there are a lot of different standards. If the studio has a 2" 24-track and you've recorded on a 1/4" 4-track machine, well it's just not going to happen...

So the first question is, what particular kind of TEAC machine do you have in mind?

If it's a stereo mixdown machine like the 22-2, model 32, BR20 or something, then yes, if the studio has a 2-track machine they should be able to do a transfer.

But multitrack tapes are a different kettle of fish.

Your questions are kind of... different to each other, but I'll see what I can do. The first thing to bear in mind is that there is no one particular way of integrating analogue and digital stuff.

Some people multitrack to analogue, import it to a DAW and edit and mix digitally.
Some people multitrack to digital and dump the mix to a 2-track mastering machine like the BR20, which they then re-digitize afterwards. (This can be done in-the-box or via an analogue mixer)
Other people multitrack to analogue, mix in analogue and then digitize the stereo mix as the absolutely last step.

The funny thing is, when I was setting out, I had exactly zero experience aside from Goldwave and a little bit of Cakewalk. I just bought what I thought I needed and slotted it all together intuitively.

So, let's see:
1. For digitizing a multitrack tape, it is possible to play each track back one at a time, but that's not recommended. You'll have to do a lot of messing around in the editor to get them to line up again, particularly as the tape deck - and sound card - are prone to drifting slightly and the tracks will not remain quite in sync. In any case you'd be better off doing them two at a time using the L and R inputs of your audio interface.

The better approach is to get a multichannel interface. Say you're using a TEAC 80-8, or a TSR-8 or something... you would get an 8-input sound card, and digitize all 8 tracks simultaneously.
However, this gets very expensive if you're dealing with a 16 or 24-track tape machine.

You could use a hybrid approach where you digitize a 16 or 24 track tape in groups of 8 channels, but again there will be some messing around to get the tracks to keep in time with each other.

2. I use two mixing boards. A small one going into the multitrack, and a larger one for actually mixing. That allows me to route the sound and add EQ going in during recording, and then use the larger desk for the mix.

There's a diagram of my old setup here:
https://homerecording.com/bbs/gener...outing-topology-24-tracks-324850/#post3666926
...ignore the fact that there are two recorders in the middle, that's fairly advanced stuff. Just pretend there's one. The master recorder on the end is where the final mix ends up.

Since then I have done a new diagram of the current setup, and that is fantastically complicated.

I can't really answer question 3, though. I haven't done it.

 

[Chilljam]

The better approach is to get a multichannel interface. Say you're using a TEAC 80-8, or a TSR-8 or something... you would get an 8-input sound card, and digitize all 8 tracks simultaneously.
However, this gets very expensive if you're dealing with a 16 or 24-track tape machine.

I don't think multichannel digital interfaces are 'very expensive'. 16 input Tascam interfaces can be had for $300-$400. If you have a 16 track tape machine you are probably paying $100+ for each tape so the interface is relatively cheap.

for your last point 'hithere'... it's not necessarily 'wrong' but it's a bit 'indie' to record drums digitally whilst everything else is on tape. A lot of people I know do it the other way around, record drums (and usually bass) to tape then everything else in the DAW because the analog recorded drums sound is the most appealing thing to them

I mean I can see why you want to do it that way (drums are probably the most difficult and expensive thing to record at home for a typical band). I'm not trying to discourage you from using this method just simply stating what I think is the common approach.

You haven't necessarily stated your 'needs' (how many tracks do you need/want? Do you want to master to tape? digital? mix in analog or digital? or even track in analog or digital?). I'll give you my recommendation on the best approach in my opinion:

I think a good compromise between price, sound quality and flexibility for you is recording to a 1/2" 8 track ($200-$800 depending on brand/model and condition), then buying an 8 channel Tascam interface ($200 to $300) then mixing everything on the computer (given that you probably already have a DAW setup). This way you don't pay too much for the 1/2" tape (1" and 2" tape costs more than $200 per tape), you don't spend thousands on outboard gear and just use the free/cheap plugins in your DAW and you tracked to tape so it will still have a bit of the analog sound to it.

If you want more analog sound then you can master to a 1/4" 2 track from the DAW, since these machines are only 2 track and on 1/4" tape, you can get a great sounding machine for a couple of hundred dollars.

So that's one of a hundred ways to do it.

 

[hithere1]

well thanks guys. I still interested in purchasing one of these teac/tascam 8 tracks maybe.

1. I know a very probably stupid question, but I don't understand how you can mix after the tracks are laid down with a board. The board really can control the tape and increase bass/treble/compression/reverb/faders after the tracks are recorded?

2. Also if I were to get an 8 track, and an interface with 8 inputs, do you guys think the sound would be worth dumping into a daw then? As in just tracking to tape and then dumping to daw

 

[jpmorris]

I don't think multichannel digital interfaces are 'very expensive'. 16 input Tascam interfaces can be had for $300-$400. If you have a 16 track tape machine you are probably paying $100+ for each tape so the interface is relatively cheap.

Yeah, well I jumped from needing to digitize 8 tracks to 24. I couldn't find any way to do that for less than $800. I found a cheap BBR-1 in the end, it's a one-trick pony but for making safety copies of 24-track tapes it does the job very nicely.

well thanks guys. I still interested in purchasing one of these teac/tascam 8 tracks maybe.

I agree, 1/2" 8-track is a nice format to start out on.

1. I know a very probably stupid question, but I don't understand how you can mix after the tracks are laid down with a board. The board really can control the tape and increase bass/treble/compression/reverb/faders after the tracks are recorded?

Yeah, EQ filters can add/subtract bass or treble from any signal. It doesn't matter to the circuitry whether the signal was pre-recorded or not. The others aren't so clear-cut.
As a rule analogue mixers don't usually have per-channel compression unless they're extremely expensive (like, more than a car), though there are exceptions. What they do invariably have is one or more FX channels.

How this works is that each channel has a knob with an Aux send level. If you turn it up, it will send the signal to a dedicated Aux output - usually this is then plugged into a reverb unit or something. If you have two Aux channels you could have one for echo one for reverb, whatever. Either way, the reverb unit's output is then put back into the mixer, there's usually a dedicated Aux return input for this.
Alternatively, some boards have an FX unit built in.

Either way, the practical upshot is that you can add reverb or whatever to specific channels by turning up the Aux/Fx control for those channels. Obviously, this will not allow you to remove reverb from a pre-recorded track!
The other thing to bear in mind is that everything you send to the FX unit will get mixed together and they will all be treated in exactly the same way. Unless you have two separate Aux channels and reverb units, you can't give them different delay times or something, just different amounts of signal sent into the effects unit.

For compression you typically route the signal through a compressor before it enters the mixer. There are dedicated insert points to help with this on most mixers but I don't usually do it that way - personally I add compression during the recording and leave it alone during the mix.

The key thing to bear in mind is that a traditional recording setup doesn't allow you to add a dozen unique effects to each individual channel like a computer DAW can - you have to actually own the effects units and fit them into the signal chain appropriately ;-)

2. Also if I were to get an 8 track, and an interface with 8 inputs, do you guys think the sound would be worth dumping into a daw then? As in just tracking to tape and then dumping to daw

Some people do it that way, yes. Personally I always went for a traditional fully analogue production, warts and all to try and balance out the fact I use computer-controlled synthesizers for the performance. But I can appreciate that's not for everyone.

 

[hithere1]

hey guys thanks so much for your help, I appreciate it. I just want to give you a long winded post about why I am interested in this approach, so you have some more understanding.

I grew up as an only child who's musical abilities really took shape when I was 13, and got a boss digital 8 track for christmas. It taught me how to do the basics, and more importantly is what allowed me to become a multi instrumentalist, listen critically, and put together a whole song rhythmically as well as melodically. With a 57/and 58 I recorded all the time, and every year learned something new.

This same machine would help me at the age of 18 when I was finishing up my first real EP, I didn't have enough money to do everything at the studio, so I tracked some of it at home, and had it mixed by someone at the studio.

Fast forward a couple years to college and now I run a macbook pro and Logic Express, with various interfaces, but mostly my lowly Line6 UX2. I take some audio classes, and most of the students are kind of suprised by my approach and mixes. They see minimum edits, automation, but still enjoy the mix.

I approach DAWS in a very basic way.

Where I am at now, is a little frustrated with not being able to get everything together to properly book sessions because of conflicting times, and dates between the people involved, and am considering getting the drums done in the studio, and bringing those tracks home to do the rest.

The concept would be I would buy some used gear, use that used gear to track, sell that used gear, have money to go into the studio and mix.

But why tape? Well here is what I am thinking

1. I would like to be able to mix on tape, for fun, just as an experiment at the least, and something perhaps that opens a world for me at the most. I would most definitely do some mixes that never touch the daw right off the bat. I have such a romantic notion of mixing on a board, and feeling/hearing the mix instead of staring at complex eq plugins. My ear is my best trait as a musician.

Most importantly I grew up on Petty and Bruce, and even a lot of the new bands who are important to me are very much proud of using analog, such as Death Cab for Cutie, Ryan Adams, and of course Jack White projects.

I can assume that these prosumer pieces will not give me the studer sound that these guys probably have, but if I can just see a glimpse of that sound it could be a great gateway to a new world where I may invest in something like that some day.

All my recording friends are doing drum replacement/extensive editing/auto tuning/ snapping to the grid, nothing I do even when using a daw

2. Integrate it with a Daw. The modern day safety net. I know most likely I will have to bring in some pro mixers and engineers at some point. So if I were to get an 8 track, and a 8 input interface to dump it, I could then work on the tracks wherever.

3. At the price that some of these 8 tracks run for, I could afford the machine plus a board/maybe a single good pre/a decent condenser (all used) compared to just an expensive 2 channel interface. Have already been down that road

I remember even when I had a focusrite ISA One around, though I couldn't sync it with my digital setup, listening through the analog circuit using the built in headphone jack gave me a pretty pleasing experience, unfortunately couldn't print it to my daw.

 

[famous beagle]

Aesthetically I am trying to get away from some of the more modern ways of life in all areas, social networking, constant cell phone use, always having the laptop on.

The others have done a fine job answering your audio questions. I just wanted to comment on the statement above and say "bravo" to you. A lot of youngsters like yourself probably don't remember a pre-internet world, but I certainly do. And it was quite different.

I know every generation has its "back in my day" story, but so far in my life (I'm 40), the invention of the internet has unquestionably been the great divide. I think it's right up there with the phone, radio, and TV with regards to its effect on the routine of every day life.

I would say that it's been more significant than any of those, but I wasn't around for their debut, so I can't really speak authoritatively on it. I mean ... cell phones were big, but they didn't make a huge dent in everyday life. But it's the cell phone with the internet that's really the drug-in-disguise of today that's become an epidemic.

I haven't owned a cell phone for probably 15 years now. My wife has a little prepaid one that she carries with her for road emergencies and things like that with the kids, but we don't even have a text plan.

I rode the merry-go-round in the mall with my 3-year old son a few months ago. There were probably 7 or 8 other kids on there with parents riding with them ... and all but one were texting or whatever on their phones through the entire ride. It was disturbing.