Mixing Down

desmond22

New member
Hi All.
Ive got a tascam TSR8 and a m216 mixer. Getting a pretty good sound and starting to mixdown. My Question is : which is better to mix too, a DAT machine, or a Zoom H2 recorder onto SD card.
Lately ive been recording straight to the zoom cause from there its easy to get it onto my computer and onto ipod so i can listen on the road. If i use the DAT its a bit more of a hassle cause i dont have a sound card. Im about to master 4 songs so im wanting to get the music onto the best format to submit to the mastering guy.
Any ideas??
thanks in advance
Steve
 
As the Zoom can record at 24bit/96kHz and the DAT can probably only handle 16bit/48kHz the Zoom should be the best to preserve audio quality.

Although your aim will presumably be to convert to mp3 at some point to put on your iPod you should still try to maintain the best audio quality you can up to that point. You can always record 2 versions of each song to the Zoom - one uncompressed .wav file to carry out mastering on and an mp3 for your iPod.

For mastering you should supply a high quality, uncompressed stereo mix; the mastering engineer will handle converting these to 16bit/44.1kHz for the final CD.
 
Ask your mastering engineers what they'd prefer. Some like DAT due to low error rate compared to a CDR. Others may not still have a reliable DAT machine or just don't like 'em...so best to ask.
 
If you record to the Zoom, you'll end up with a file that you can send to the engineer via FTP, YouSendIt, DropBox or something like that. A DAT tape might get lost, broken, or not be readable on his machine if he even still has one.
 
When I got the 8 track , I thought I needed a dat player so I paid 370 for a Sony dat Walkman. A bit excessive. At the time I had an mbox and I went to that. Bit of a hassle. I got a digi 002 now but don't use it. I always had the zoom and have found it to be the easiest to use. The dat sounds very good whenvyou listen to it through headphones. I was just wondering if the quality would be better than the zoom, which feels cheap, but is pretty good tech I think. As far as sending goes it would no doubt be a drop off in person, although I may need to send to nz as well from Australia.thanks alot for chiming in!
 
Tough call. The DAT machine is liable to have better quality converters for its time. The technology will not be as good but it is more likely to have been designed and built with sound quality in mind. The Zoom will have been built more with price in mind. They probably used fairly cheap converters and the analogue side of it may be suspect quality-wise.
 
I still have a DA30 mkI (now sitting in the back somewhere..
..and a drawer full of masters I'm avoiding thinking about what the hell I'm going to do with them.

;):rolleyes::o
 
Tough call. The DAT machine is liable to have better quality converters for its time. The technology will not be as good but it is more likely to have been designed and built with sound quality in mind. The Zoom will have been built more with price in mind. They probably used fairly cheap converters and the analogue side of it may be suspect quality-wise.

Interesting point, good 44.1/16bit vs mediocre 96/24bit. I'm not commenting on either of these one way or another, but it's an interesting point. I have a pretty old Sony DAT, and I've been happy with the sound.
 
well ive pulled the DAT out and given it another go. I think it far exceeds the Zoom in sound quality. Ive done some bounces on the zoom at 96khz 48bit and thrown it on the computer. Tonight ive bounced to DAT. The sound off the DAT sounds much warmer, cleaner, clearer, less digital than off the computer. I just have a feeling that the zoom is pretty shit - convenient though. JUst a mission to get the sounds onto my computer from DAT.
 
Why not mix down to a 1/4 inch tape machine? Or better yet, a 1/2 reel?

If we all love analog recording, why kill the music dumping it into a computer?
Why not preserve the analog signal right to the user by releasing your music on vinyl, cassette or open reel?
 
Why not mix down to a 1/4 inch tape machine? Or better yet, a 1/2 reel?

If we all love analog recording, why kill the music dumping it into a computer?
Why not preserve the analog signal right to the user by releasing your music on vinyl, cassette or open reel?
I agree 100%.
 
Why not preserve the analog signal right to the user by releasing your music on vinyl, cassette or open reel?

Yeah as 'zorf' pointed out... maybe you should of worded that differently.. something like:

"Have you considered the option of releasing your music on vinyl, cassette or open reel?"

Vinyl is great if you are making 1000+ copies... cassette is OK if your only making a few and open reel not so handy these days as a playback device.
 
I do think he makes an excellent point about using analog for mixdown too. If you're going to go through all trouble of tracking in analog, it really is best to keep the whole chain analog and then you can easily transfer from the analog 2-track master tape to whatever format you want later on without having to worry about doing another mix or any other drastic change in the originally-intended sound.

And I think doing a limited release on open reel would be totally cool. I plan to do it myself; do some very limited releases of maybe a dozen or so copies on 7,5ips 1/4 track stereo. I mean, why not? I'm not looking to go double-platinum or anything, LOL.
 
Second and third generation safety masters.
copies of copies of copies.
Or with vinyl, unsold boxes of expensive records in the closet.
 
no, not been there, but have seen it many times.
Let's face it, krunchy sound quality aside, ones and zeros are sure are easy to move around.
 
Well,

What is the objective here? This is the analog section of home recording. I would HOPE
this is where the serious home musicians are hanging out. That's why I hopped on here to learn and maybe even contribute a bit from my experiences as a somewhat successful artist. I say somewhat because it's always relative. This isn't about me.

My point is that if we are going to go analog as we should, then we should proudly carry the flag of quality over quantity. Carry the flag of capturing lighting from a session, rather than trying to "Frankenstein" it...in a digital software program.

No doubt some of the greatest recordings in history were done correctly in the analog age. Why not learn from the tremendous wealth of knowledge that has been left behind by historic record producers that did things THE RIGHT WAY!

Analog doesn't sound warm or fat, it sounds NATURAL. Simple really.

I spent enough time on the other side of the tracks to know I will NEVER record digitally again.

I will say this. My own epiphany came when I got a real stereo system. A good quality audiophile TT, a vintage tube amp that had been professionally restored, and a nice set of high efficiency speakers with horn drivers that give a very quality reproduction of sound. I pretty much had to completely re listen to my entire vinyl collection, take notes, and smack myself on the head about a 100 times with "what the hell was I thinking?

In my mind, as a collective we have made 4 grave mistakes.
1. The move from tube amplification into solid state.
2. The invention of drum machines.
3. The move into digital representation of music.
4. The move to digital editing of sound files.

I could write a book on these topics easily, but I will assume that some of you here know what I am talking about.

Now if you don't have a proper system to listen to music, you might as well skip to the next post. You are not going to understand. But I will say this... how can you really understand how to properly track, or how to properly mix if you have never actually heard what these things are supposed to sound like when performed properly? It's like trying to describe colors to the color blind.

I will argue that the analog recording process if done correctly is far superior, less expensive, more efficient and will produce both better musicians, songs, and record producers. Ultimately better product.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Remember this.

Lack of necessity breeds mediocrity and apathy.

I make a plea to you all here.. do the right thing.

Think of it this way or compare to a painting.
You have the Mona Lisa, and you have a poster of the Mona Lisa.
Sure, it's recognizable.. but essentially the poster is worthless.

Just think about it.
 
well,
the 2 things are not mutually exclusive.
You can mix down to tape, listen to it at home on tape, make a few copies on tape for friends,
and still have a digital version available
 
Back
Top