Mixing to tape from DAW?

[thefanbelow]

..with a slight clarification, he only has two inputs on the s/c, so otherwise the same but moving the tape tracks over in pairs.

Also Thefanbelow, you may quickly discover some tracks sound just fine recorded straight into the daw.

So is there anything wrong with using my pre-amp and dumping twice through that instead of having to pick up a 4-channel interface? I don't even have an interface... I had no idea I needed one. Any ones you can recommend?

I've recorded to 4 track & then upped the tracks into a DAW, added some additional ODs and taken advantage of the non destructive editing etc before mixing down to cassette.
It works.
It was easier once I had an interface that could do 4 tracks at once. before then it was much fiddlier but not horribly so.
The advantage of mixing back to tape isn't great in a 4 track cassette machine.
If it were a reel machine with faster speeds or a wider section of tape it'd be more useful.
The "TAPE" sound - saturation etc that is so much loved isn't really achievable on a portastudio.
Yes you can get pretty hot during tracking & that can sound good if done well.
I did a recording taking advantage of that aspect earlier this year.
Oh, don't forget to use the NR & High Speed options with the tape player when recording & playing back.
Just remember the more you shuttled from tape to tape the more likely the quality will "suffer".
On the gear you have the analogue qualities are mainly achieved in tracking.
With your gear mixing to a stereo track & then faux mastering of that stereo track all within the DAW are going to achieve better audio quality than mixing back to cassette tape.
Have a go though.
You may like the result.

Thank you! Will try it out.

Oh...I though someone said 4 inputs.
Well then , he can eventually get a second interface.

Thefanbelow...if you are going to do dump tracks back-n-forth, it helps to have an equal number...makes things easier.

I just realized my pre-amp is not my interface? I guess I gotta start looking...

This seems to utterly complicate things needlessly in my opinion. He's already stated he wants to record to tape. Why confuse him with another complication like "using the tape player as an effect?" That's certainly not as cut-and-dried as using a plug-in on his DAW. It'll require some creative routing that is not the easiest in the world to explain.

If he's just tracking his vocals and acoustic guitar, it's simple:

Record all 4 tracks on the 424

Since you only have two line inputs on your soundcard, you can't move all 4 tracks simultaneously to your DAW, so move tracks 1 and 2 in one pass and 3 and 4 in another.

Because the 424 will not play back at exactly the same speed each time, there will probably be a second or two of drift between tracks 1-2 and tracks 3-4 throughout the coarse of a 3-4 minute song. So you'll simply need to stretch (make the wav files slightly longer while retaining pitch) or squash (make them slightly shorter while retaining the pitch) the track pairs as necessary to get them to line up. I don't know if Garage Band does this, but if not, I'm sure there are plenty of free time stretch programs that'll do it.

Then you'll have your original 4 tracks aligned in the DAW where you can mix them or add a few additional overdubs if you want first. I guarantee you that's the easiest way to do what you said you want to do. To recap:

1 Record 4 tracks to 424
2 Transfer TKs 1 and 2 to DAW
3 Transfer TKs 3 and 4 to DAW
4 Time stretch as necessary to align those tracks
5 Add additional overdubs to DAW if needed
6 Mix down in DAW

That's it. Enjoy.

Sounds like exactly what I want. Thank you!

That, plus the extra two conversions to get out of the box and back in.

I'm not one to argue that conversions make a massive difference. For example, I don't hear much difference between my Delta and high-end converters, but I do figure that the less you do to your audio the better it will sound.

 

[miroslav]

That makes total sense. Just three questions if you would.

When you want me to record a click track to it, do you mean literally have a count that goes to 8? I didn't know portastudios could record click track's and I'm worried that the click would come up in my recording... I imagine it doesn't but could you just give me a little more clarification on that?

You can do it two ways, dedicate an entire track to a Click track, which helps with timing and not just aligning.
Or...you can record just an 8-count lead-in on one track, and then stop the click as you start playing/recording your music on that same track. So...you get 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-Music.....

And after I dump my first set into the DAW, what is the point of redumping the submix again on round 2? Do I just delete it in the DAW when it goes there?

By reduming the submix with the second group of tracks, you have that exact same 8-count lead in (or entire Click) that you used for the first group...AND...you second group used the submix as a guide. So...when you grab and align the second group to the first...you align those 8-count lead-ins of each group....and the rest falls into place. It would be 100% perfect sync from head to tail, as tape wow & flutter even in small amounts will cause some drift...but overall the tracks will be close enough for Rock & Roll as they say...and then you just nudge/align individual pieces of tracks as needed.
That's why if you could keep your initial Click/Rhythm tracks as one dump...they will stay locked solid...then on the second dump you do the vocals leads, which usually have a bit more "looseness" to them, and you can nudge/align them to taste.
Of course, since you only can transfer two tracks at a time...that adds a but of a twist to it...but still workable.
Like I said, Ideally, you would have as many converter channels as simultaneous tracks you would like to transfer to the DAW.

And should I be setting my EQ/reverbs and whatever on the Tascam before recording, after recording, or wait for it to hit the DAW?

Well...if you are dumping to the DAW...honestly, as much as I am an analog processing kind of guy...in your case, you will find MUCH better EQ/Reverbs in the DAW than you will at the TASCAM 242...not to mention you want to apply EQ/Reverb type of stuff after you have all you tracks recorded and ready for mixing...not so much piecemeal as you track...though sometimes a touch of EQ or compression as you are tracking is not uncommon and could be used to get the desired tones recorded. Tracking processing is not the same as mixing processing...you don't want to do anything too extreme during tracking.

 

[miroslav]

So is there anything wrong with using my pre-amp and dumping twice through that instead of having to pick up a 4-channel interface?

Nothing wrong...just more work and more chances of track drifting.

As an example...when I dump from tape to DAW...I'll dump 12-24 tracks at once (depending on what deck I used and how many tracks have been recorded. (I can do that becuase I have three 8-channel DAW interfaces for a total of 24 channels).

When you dump 12 tracks all at once...it's a lot tighter than dumping 2+2+2+2+2+2......etc.

 

[Tim Gillett]

This seems to utterly complicate things needlessly in my opinion. He's already stated he wants to record to tape. Why confuse him with another complication like "using the tape player as an effect?" That's certainly not as cut-and-dried as using a plug-in on his DAW. It'll require some creative routing that is not the easiest in the world to explain.

Right at the start he said,

"I'm trying to preserve the analog sound/feel as much as possible and even though transferring it to my DAW I'm sure will remove some of the feel, maybe putting it back on the Tascam is the way to enrich it again? Can anyone aware me on how to do this and if my intentions are misguided"

He did not appear dogmatic that he wanted to record to tape first. He asked if his intentions were misguided. I believe nobody gave him a straight enough answer to these questions, so I did.

He said "transferring it to my DAW I'm sure will remove some of the feel" it fell to me to tell him plainly that no, he wouldnt lose any of the analog tape feel by transferring to DAW.
It's not confusing him to speak of "using the tape player as an effect". Just the opposite because sonically that's exactly what happens.


True, the routing of cables in and out of the DAW and the gain staging have to be right but it always has to be right anyway for good results.
Also most critically, the losses due to a few extra passes through A/D and D/A are nothing compared to the losses of the cassette medium itself even at its best.

You also have to set that against the inconvenience of having to time align tracks every time you do more than two tracks.

I've done time stretching many times. With non time coded analog it can be a real pain depending on the length of the track and the material's demands on phase coherence.

But actually within digital only it's a lot easier as you know each time exactly what the error % will be and it is consistent throughout the track. So going from my Zoom H4 portable to my PC I know that there will be an error of +0.045% every time. (It's a known fault in the Zoom H4)

But the error will be consistent from beginning to end. I have the number written right in front of me on my PC so that each time I just punch it into "time stretch" in Wavelab it works perfectly.
Did it again last night for a live concert video shot a week ago at a medium sized venue. Worked perfectly over a 54 minute set played live. The stereo audience track is now perfectly in sync with the stereo soundboard mix. I can now mix it hassle free.

I have a track up on Youtube where I time aligned an analog cassette recording to the same content on a digitised TV music performance recorded in 1975. (The TV track has horrible sound and so I replaced it with my home recording of the same audio which was much better but falls well short I'm sure of the original analog recording on 2" quad videotape running I think 15ips.)
It took me a lot of messing around to get it well aligned. Even though the error is smaller when you are using the same cassette deck for record and playback, it's still there and will not be constant throughout the track. It will drift ahead and behind, ahead and behind. As someone else mentioned, very difficult if there is a need for tight phase coherence.


For a newcomer, another excellent and educative reason to track to digital first and then through analog cassette tape , is that you have the original track in digital which is much more faithful to the original analog input from your microphone. So you can make your own direct A/B listening comparison and hear exactly what the tape is doing to the original live input.
Whereas if you track initially to cassette you may never know the losses you have incurred. It's been disguised. There's no true A/B comparison you can refer to.

 

[thefanbelow]

You can do it two ways, dedicate an entire track to a Click track, which helps with timing and not just aligning.
Or...you can record just an 8-count lead-in on one track, and then stop the click as you start playing/recording your music on that same track. So...you get 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-Music.....




By reduming the submix with the second group of tracks, you have that exact same 8-count lead in (or entire Click) that you used for the first group...AND...you second group used the submix as a guide. So...when you grab and align the second group to the first...you align those 8-count lead-ins of each group....and the rest falls into place. It would be 100% perfect sync from head to tail, as tape wow & flutter even in small amounts will cause some drift...but overall the tracks will be close enough for Rock & Roll as they say...and then you just nudge/align individual pieces of tracks as needed.
That's why if you could keep your initial Click/Rhythm tracks as one dump...they will stay locked solid...then on the second dump you do the vocals leads, which usually have a bit more "looseness" to them, and you can nudge/align them to taste.
Of course, since you only can transfer two tracks at a time...that adds a but of a twist to it...but still workable.
Like I said, Ideally, you would have as many converter channels as simultaneous tracks you would like to transfer to the DAW.




Well...if you are dumping to the DAW...honestly, as much as I am an analog processing kind of guy...in your case, you will find MUCH better EQ/Reverbs in the DAW than you will at the TASCAM 242...not to mention you want to apply EQ/Reverb type of stuff after you have all you tracks recorded and ready for mixing...not so much piecemeal as you track...though sometimes a touch of EQ or compression as you are tracking is not uncommon and could be used to get the desired tones recorded. Tracking processing is not the same as mixing processing...you don't want to do anything too extreme during tracking.

Nothing wrong...just more work and more chances of track drifting.

As an example...when I dump from tape to DAW...I'll dump 12-24 tracks at once (depending on what deck I used and how many tracks have been recorded. (I can do that becuase I have three 8-channel DAW interfaces for a total of 24 channels).

When you dump 12 tracks all at once...it's a lot tighter than dumping 2+2+2+2+2+2......etc.

Well I am working on Garageband which I believe has no SMPTE time code support, so now with what Tim Gillett has said below, I am worrying that the time differences will be too much to handle? I read on another post on this forum that I can avoid this by getting a synchronizer like a Tascam MTS-30 or JL Cooper PPS2 which converts the code to MTC. But I don't think GB supports any time code.

These are 3 quotes I read that suggest ways around the time issue:

1: "bounce the backing track starting at 11111 or whatever, do your overdubs, and bounce the overdubs from the same starting point, individually"
2: "if your ADAT machine responds to audible timecoede (LTC, I thinK?) then you could create a track of LTC which you play back out of wavelab to drive your ADAT machine. At least that's how we would have done it back in the late 90s."..
3: "obtain some LTC as a .WAV file, and play it out through an audio output."


If I can avoid all this time code stuff with just an interface, I'll do that.

Is the time difference uniform or can there be like 30 seconds on, then 8 seconds off, and random stuff like that? If I can minimize the chance of this by getting a interface, then I have no problem getting one as I need a new pre amp anyway for my sm57. And can you explain how dumping them 2 at a time is a lot worse than 4? My vision of "dumping" a track is just hooking it up via RCA cables and creating a new track for each dump, so it's pretty linear in my mind and I guess I don't know actually the process and why 4 > 2 channels (if they are both doing the same thing anyway).

Right at the start he said,

"I'm trying to preserve the analog sound/feel as much as possible and even though transferring it to my DAW I'm sure will remove some of the feel, maybe putting it back on the Tascam is the way to enrich it again? Can anyone aware me on how to do this and if my intentions are misguided"

He did not appear dogmatic that he wanted to record to tape first. He asked if his intentions were misguided. I believe nobody gave him a straight enough answer to these questions, so I did.

He said "transferring it to my DAW I'm sure will remove some of the feel" it fell to me to tell him plainly that no, he wouldnt lose any of the analog tape feel by transferring to DAW.
It's not confusing him to speak of "using the tape player as an effect". Just the opposite because sonically that's exactly what happens.


True, the routing of cables in and out of the DAW and the gain staging have to be right but it always has to be right anyway for good results.
Also most critically, the losses due to a few extra passes through A/D and D/A are nothing compared to the losses of the cassette medium itself even at its best.

You also have to set that against the inconvenience of having to time align tracks every time you do more than two tracks.

I've done time stretching many times. With non time coded analog it can be a real pain depending on the length of the track and the material's demands on phase coherence.

But actually within digital only it's a lot easier as you know each time exactly what the error % will be and it is consistent throughout the track. So going from my Zoom H4 portable to my PC I know that there will be an error of +0.045% every time. (It's a known fault in the Zoom H4)

But the error will be consistent from beginning to end. I have the number written right in front of me on my PC so that each time I just punch it into "time stretch" in Wavelab it works perfectly.
Did it again last night for a live concert video shot a week ago at a medium sized venue. Worked perfectly over a 54 minute set played live. The stereo audience track is now perfectly in sync with the stereo soundboard mix. I can now mix it hassle free.

I have a track up on Youtube where I time aligned an analog cassette recording to the same content on a digitised TV music performance recorded in 1975. (The TV track has horrible sound and so I replaced it with my home recording of the same audio which was much better but falls well short I'm sure of the original analog recording on 2" quad videotape running I think 15ips.)
It took me a lot of messing around to get it well aligned. Even though the error is smaller when you are using the same cassette deck for record and playback, it's still there and will not be constant throughout the track. It will drift ahead and behind, ahead and behind. As someone else mentioned, very difficult if there is a need for tight phase coherence.


For a newcomer, another excellent and educative reason to track to digital first and then through analog cassette tape , is that you have the original track in digital which is much more faithful to the original analog input from your microphone. So you can make your own direct A/B listening comparison and hear exactly what the tape is doing to the original live input.
Whereas if you track initially to cassette you may never know the losses you have incurred. It's been disguised. There's no true A/B comparison you can refer to.

Thanks alot for your post. I replied above about the time differences and think it is something I have to worry about. Can you link me to or briefly explain the process of DAW > analog? I do want to at least try analog > DAW first but have no issue trying both, unless this process is way more costly.

 

[miroslav]

He did not appear dogmatic that he wanted to record to tape first.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

So you can make your own direct A/B listening comparison and hear exactly what the tape is doing to the original live input.
Whereas if you track initially to cassette you may never know the losses you have incurred. It's been disguised. There's no true A/B comparison you can refer to.

Tim

You made some good points in your post...I agree, and also suggested to the OP that he should try it a couple of different ways and make his own quality comparisons. One man's lo-fi is another man's nirvana...and vice-versa.

I kinda went with his apparent desire to maintain that "analog quality" (or sound/vibe/whatever...) so in that regard it may be more in line for him to track to the cassette deck first and then dump to DAW...that's all.

As I said...just talking about "cassette tape analog quality" can be somewhat of a "strain" when compared to what you get with larger format decks...but on the higher end, I think most would agree that if you want the analog sound of a 24-track 2" AMPEX or Studer or whatever tape deck, you probably want to go tape first, then dump to DAW...
...just seems to be the general concensus...but again, each person should explore all options and find the one that fits their rig and SOP best.
Sometimes splitting hairs over one small step/proccess may be insignificant when the entire chain is taken into acount...I think you would agree.

 

[miroslav]

Well I am working on Garageband which I believe has no SMPTE time code support, so now with what Tim Gillett has said below, I am worrying that the time differences will be too much to handle? I read on another post on this forum that I can avoid this by getting a synchronizer like a Tascam MTS-30 or JL Cooper PPS2 which converts the code to MTC. But I don't think GB supports any time code.

.............

Can you link me to or briefly explain the process of DAW > analog? I do want to at least try analog > DAW first but have no issue trying both, unless this process is way more costly.

Not to dissuade you from trying it...but for a 4-track cassette rig...you may find that getting deep into sync boxes and all that is going to be tedious and a bit overkill.
There are ways to completely avoid ever dealing with sync between tape and DAW...BUT...it would best be done with at least a 1/4" 2-track or some other larger scale format...mmmmmm...not much value in using the cassette format for that.
I don't want to get your head all spun around now and explain the process...but in a nutshell, it sets up your tape deck to be a pure "processor", and not really a multi-track recorder.
You end up actually recording to a DAW, *but through the tape deck*. You do that with every new DAW track, and what goes down on tape is tossed out/irrelevant, as you are only using the tape for that "real time" moment...
It's a cool way for a solo musician to use nothing more than a 1/4" 2-track, reap the benefits of the HUGE tape width/track...and yet still be recording to a DAW.

AFA going from DAW to tape...it's just a matter of plugging your DAW outputs to your tape inputs...BUT...in your case, you can only do 2 tracks at a time...and there is NO WAY you will be able to align two sets of 2 tracks when going from DAW to Tape without a rock-solid syncronization solution...of course then you are back to fiddling with that for a cassette rig...which as I said, is not going to be worth the price of admission...IMHO.

Decide what is your MAIN goal....to keep things as analog as possible...or to record many tracks and be able to do all kinds of edits/processing.
If it is the former...then your 424 will be your focus...if it is the later, then the DAW will be your focus.
IMO...if it is the latter, but you truly want to capture some sweet analog tape goodnes...then you might find yourself a 1/4" 2-track or maybe a 1/2" 8 track (if you have need to do more than 2 tracks simultaneously, like if you had a band over)...and then we can talk in more detail about the sync-less method I mentioned above.

But before you get bummed out and consider selling your cassette (that you just got)...the sync-less method can work with cassette too...its just not going to give you the best analog tape goodness...IMHO.

At this point...I'm sure you are looking for a bottle of Advil or a nice shot of bourbon.

 

[ido1957]

I would buy a decent USB interface go directly to DAW and forget about using the portastudio. I have the exact same model of portastudio and have not used it for probably 5 years. I moved from portastudio to ADAT to DAW. I'll probably get nothing for my portastudio as cassettes are almost non-existent in our stores. It can be used for a simple cheap mixer though. I never found the portastudio could match the convenience and clean sound of a DAW. I can add "warmth" with reamping or with plugins. Just my 2 cents...

 

[mixsit]

Well I am working on Garageband which I believe has no SMPTE time code support, so now with what Tim Gillett has said below, I am worrying that the time differences will be too much to handle?

...I read on another post on this forum that I can avoid this by getting a synchronizer like a Tascam MTS-30 or JL Cooper PPS2 which converts the code to MTC. But I don't think GB supports any time code.
... And can you explain how dumping them 2 at a time is a lot worse than 4? My vision of "dumping" a track is just hooking it up via RCA cables and creating a new track for each dump, so it's pretty linear in my mind and I guess I don't know actually the process and why 4 > 2 channels (if they are both doing the same thing anyway)...

Personally, you may be getting way ahead in the worrying about it part.
IMO you should try it- Record the alignment tic' on all four, do the record into the daw-
a) Two at a time' is apt to be no worse than four now and some more later (from what ever new tracks..), it'll just take more steps.
b) The same deck playing into the daw may have damn near the same drifts/variation rates and such for the first pass as the second -ie they may line up fine.
If they don't, maybe you do a little split and sliding'.

BTW, when you say pre amp' I assume you mean your soundcard inputs? You want line in's, not mic pre level' ins.

 

[mixsit]

Well I am working on Garageband which I believe has no SMPTE time code support, so now with what Tim Gillett has said below, I am worrying that the time differences will be too much to handle? I read on another post on this forum that I can avoid this by getting a synchronizer like a Tascam MTS-30 or JL Cooper PPS2 which converts the code to MTC. But I don't think GB supports any time code.

These are 3 quotes I read that suggest ways around the time issue:

1: "bounce the backing track starting at 11111 or whatever, do your overdubs, and bounce the overdubs from the same starting point, individually"
2: "if your ADAT machine responds to audible timecoede (LTC, I thinK?) then you could create a track of LTC which you play back out of wavelab to drive your ADAT machine. At least that's how we would have done it back in the late 90s."..
3: "obtain some LTC as a .WAV file, and play it out through an audio output."


If I can avoid all this time code stuff with just an interface, I'll do that.

Is the time difference uniform or can there be like 30 seconds on, then 8 seconds off, and random stuff like that? If I can minimize the chance of this by getting a interface, then I have no problem getting one as I need a new pre amp anyway for my sm57. And can you explain how dumping them 2 at a time is a lot worse than 4? My vision of "dumping" a track is just hooking it up via RCA cables and creating a new track for each dump, so it's pretty linear in my mind and I guess I don't know actually the process and why 4 > 2 channels (if they are both doing the same thing anyway).



Thanks alot for your post. I replied above about the time differences and think it is something I have to worry about. Can you link me to or briefly explain the process of DAW > analog? I do want to at least try analog > DAW first but have no issue trying both, unless this process is way more costly.

Man this brings back some memories- ADATs chasing 1/4" SMPTE striped eight track.
..still have the Fostex RD-8.

If nothing else it was grand educational time and effort.

 

[thefanbelow]

Not to dissuade you from trying it...but for a 4-track cassette rig...you may find that getting deep into sync boxes and all that is going to be tedious and a bit overkill.
There are ways to completely avoid ever dealing with sync between tape and DAW...BUT...it would best be done with at least a 1/4" 2-track or some other larger scale format...mmmmmm...not much value in using the cassette format for that.
I don't want to get your head all spun around now and explain the process...but in a nutshell, it sets up your tape deck to be a pure "processor", and not really a multi-track recorder.
You end up actually recording to a DAW, *but through the tape deck*. You do that with every new DAW track, and what goes down on tape is tossed out/irrelevant, as you are only using the tape for that "real time" moment...
It's a cool way for a solo musician to use nothing more than a 1/4" 2-track, reap the benefits of the HUGE tape width/track...and yet still be recording to a DAW.

AFA going from DAW to tape...it's just a matter of plugging your DAW outputs to your tape inputs...BUT...in your case, you can only do 2 tracks at a time...and there is NO WAY you will be able to align two sets of 2 tracks when going from DAW to Tape without a rock-solid syncronization solution...of course then you are back to fiddling with that for a cassette rig...which as I said, is not going to be worth the price of admission...IMHO.

Decide what is your MAIN goal....to keep things as analog as possible...or to record many tracks and be able to do all kinds of edits/processing.
If it is the former...then your 424 will be your focus...if it is the later, then the DAW will be your focus.
IMO...if it is the latter, but you truly want to capture some sweet analog tape goodnes...then you might find yourself a 1/4" 2-track or maybe a 1/2" 8 track (if you have need to do more than 2 tracks simultaneously, like if you had a band over)...and then we can talk in more detail about the sync-less method I mentioned above.

But before you get bummed out and consider selling your cassette (that you just got)...the sync-less method can work with cassette too...its just not going to give you the best analog tape goodness...IMHO.

At this point...I'm sure you are looking for a bottle of Advil or a nice shot of bourbon.

So you think a 1/4 2" track would give me what I want?

I don't know if I mentioned this before, but I also own the original 424. If my line ups don't work, maybe I could dump mixes onto the other 424 and just do all my mixing on there. It'll be sparse but I can do without all the effects. I don't do much on the DAW anyway except EQ (which my Tascam has) and some minor echos, reverb. I mostly like it for editing overdubs and stuff, but in reality, I could do without it.

Personally, you may be getting way ahead in the worrying about it part.
IMO you should try it- Record the alignment tic' on all four, do the record into the daw-
a) Two at a time' is apt to be no worse than four now and some more later (from what ever new tracks..), it'll just take more steps.
b) The same deck playing into the daw may have damn near the same drifts/variation rates and such for the first pass as the second -ie they may line up fine.
If they don't, maybe you do a little split and sliding'.

BTW, when you say pre amp' I assume you mean your soundcard inputs? You want line in's, not mic pre level' ins.

I don't have an external soundcard or a "interface". All I have is a M-audio Mobile Pre, some mics, a Tascam 424, and my DAW... I'm clearly missing something.

 

[mixsit]

I don't have an external soundcard or a "interface". All I have is a M-audio Mobile Pre, some mics, a Tascam 424, and my DAW... I'm clearly missing something.

Mobile Pre' is the 'interface' to your daw/recording. The difference is if it was the kind mounted in the computer they call them sound cards'.

..I use Garage Band as my DAW and currently have a M-Audio Mobile Pre with 2 mic channels
and the option to do 2 line-ins.

 

[thefanbelow]

Mobile Pre' is the 'interface' to your daw/recording. The difference is if it was the kind mounted in the computer they call them sound cards'.

Got it. Could you recommend something (preferably 4 channels if it will reduce the chance of mistiming via dumping) that will be good for my Shure 57?

 

[mixsit]

Got it. Could you recommend something (preferably 4 channels if it will reduce the chance of mistiming via dumping) that will be good for my Shure 57?

Nope. I wouldn't know. Two RME ADI-8's and RayDat' here.
You really tryin' to not try out your idea there...(?

 

[miroslav]

I think we are all going off like Roman candles on the 4th with all the various questions and suggestions, and it may just be adding to the confusion or difficulty of reaching a final working SOP.

Why don't you maybe talk about your music, your recording style and how you like to work...and most of all, you productions goals and quality level you are after.
The little nuts-n-bolts stuff sometimes takes command of your attention...when in fact you can get to the end product many different ways, but they all depend on what I said in the previous sentence.

 

[rayc]

WHATEVER you do post an MP3 or similar so we can hear it.
I LOVE analogue & still have a pair of 4 tracks cassettes (Yamaha MT100) which i use when I want some fun & to try for a lofi vintage sound. The recent project was a MONO one. I wanted to record aned mix a song completely in mono. 4 basic (wet with reverb etc on the way in so I wasn't tempted to get digital with it) tracks on the 4 track - uploaded all into my computer. I then erased three from the cassette but kept one as my guide (rhythm guitar & drum track bounced down to a single track). I recorded some more stuff (percussion & more guitar etc) to tape then uploaded those three. Lined them up, mixed them in the computer & have been waiting almost a year for someone to sing on it.
The end result, I hope, will be an essentially analogue, (well I had to cheat for mixing) mono piece of fabulousness.

 

[thefanbelow]

Nope. I wouldn't know. Two RME ADI-8's and RayDat' here.
You really tryin' to not try out your idea there...(?

Haha I'm not giving up yet. I haven't even recorded on my Tascam yet, I'm picking it up tomorrow.. Gotta get tapes first, then I can try. I should be able to get one up in the next week or so, been really busy with work.

I think we are all going off like Roman candles on the 4th with all the various questions and suggestions, and it may just be adding to the confusion or difficulty of reaching a final working SOP.

Why don't you maybe talk about your music, your recording style and how you like to work...and most of all, you productions goals and quality level you are after.
The little nuts-n-bolts stuff sometimes takes command of your attention...when in fact you can get to the end product many different ways, but they all depend on what I said in the previous sentence.

My music is just me, a guitar, and sometimes harmonica. I am going for sounds like Elliott Smith on s/t and Roman Candle, or Iron & Wine on The Creek Drank the Cradle (check songs like Lion's Mane or Upward Over the Mountain).. I'm used to recording with a DAW and I find it stumps my focus on the music because I'm trying out all these effects. All I really use is echo, reverb, and panning. The quality level I'm after is the aforementioned, I honestly prefer grit and some hiss over the pure polish.

WHATEVER you do post an MP3 or similar so we can hear it.
I LOVE analogue & still have a pair of 4 tracks cassettes (Yamaha MT100) which i use when I want some fun & to try for a lofi vintage sound. The recent project was a MONO one. I wanted to record aned mix a song completely in mono. 4 basic (wet with reverb etc on the way in so I wasn't tempted to get digital with it) tracks on the 4 track - uploaded all into my computer. I then erased three from the cassette but kept one as my guide (rhythm guitar & drum track bounced down to a single track). I recorded some more stuff (percussion & more guitar etc) to tape then uploaded those three. Lined them up, mixed them in the computer & have been waiting almost a year for someone to sing on it.
The end result, I hope, will be an essentially analogue, (well I had to cheat for mixing) mono piece of fabulousness.

Sounds really interesting. Just getting off break right now so I can't post a full response to this, but I thought it was supposed to get to stereo? (I'm sure this is a whole separate discussion).

 

[famous beagle]

Sounds really interesting. Just getting off break right now so I can't post a full response to this, but I thought it was supposed to get to stereo? (I'm sure this is a whole separate discussion).

You can go stereo; that's the norm. Rayc just chose to do mono as a personal preference/experiment.

 

[mixsit]

You can go stereo; that's the norm. Rayc just chose to do mono as a personal preference/experiment.

..what's with all the jumbled quotes and sources? Is this another site bug?

 

[thefanbelow]

Also, does anyone know if I can pick up a cheap tube pre amp, run that on my 57 and then plug in ANOTHER pre amp to a different channel with phantom power for a condenser? I need something to drive my 57 really badly, maybe I'll just stick with the onboard pre amp if I can't find something within reason...