Need your guys' honest advice...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seeker of Rock
  • Start date Start date
Seeker of Rock

Seeker of Rock

Let us be unburdened by that which has been ?
Well, of course these subjective things always answer a question with 'well, what do you want your sound to be', and 'how important is analog sound to you', etc. I'm now using an HD24 for my tracking machine, going through a joemeek VC1Qcs on most stuff but not all to start, then input into a Mackie 24 ch 8 buss, then to the HD24, then back to the board for mix and effects, then down the 2 buss to a CDRW-700. I bought the latter a few years ago for the ability to convert decently to digital format for posting and sharing. My recordings will eventually be digitized, and I want them to be for ease of sharing purposes as well to (dream on, Seeker, reach for the skies :rolleyes: :rolleyes:) place in clubs, or record (yeah, I know) stores, friends, family, whatever. My "Great American Album", piece of the American pie. Anyway, I'm wondering if I should buy a reel deck to record everything from the 2-buss to, then deal with digital conversion. Or do you think this is just one more signal-draining procedure that wouldn't yield much fidelity?

btw, still have the MSR and will get around to exploring her internal workings one day. :)
 
ah... start ranting here: :eek:
After thinking about it a bit, I'd say the only real honest "advice" I can spit out is: "You really need to try it yourself". Meaning get the machine, try mixing down your specific material to r-t-r and then do the same to CD-R and then record from your r-t-r mixdown to CD-R and then compare two CD-Rs. And really judge for yourself. it's not that easy to critically compare and decide what's better.
I've done this sort of thing (sort of of 'seriously') once. I've got some of my few years back dance-type mixes (originally they were mixed down to DAT). So what I've done was: I've recovered some of my pre-production recordings and set-ups of some of those mixes and "re-mastered" them this time recording to tascam-32 (15ips speed, 1/2-track, I've used gp-9 tape). Then I recorded from 32 to marantz CD-Recorder, then took the audio files from recorded audio-CD-R to computer and used Sound Forge CD-Architect software to make copies-CDs (assuming that this is what the "final product" would be like). So what I've got was kind of good, but to be honest, there was hardly any in-your-face difference when comparing to CD-Rs which I've made back then by mixing down to DAT and transfering from DAT digitally to computer to burn CDs. I have concluded (or I think I have :confused: ) for myself that 1/2-track/15ips is too transparent if expecting some sort of "magic tape effect" from it.
But then I thought, that it also may depend on what kind of material you mixing and many other aspects. For myself, If I have to make a master mix of some material which I consider to be good and worthy of effort, then I would do both - mix down direct to CD-R and to tape (and I may actually make a second or third special tape version on different tape-type and maybe even 7-1/2 ips-version) and then give it some time and then listen to mixes later (with fresh ear) and make the final decision on what to take as "final mix" for release.
I don't really know any better way of dealing with it. There is too much of subjectivity involved, and the judgenent also may change (shift) one way or the other over the time.
...end of rant here :)
 
Seeker of Rock said:
Anyway, I'm wondering if I should buy a reel deck to record everything from the 2-buss to, then deal with digital conversion. Or do you think this is just one more signal-draining procedure that wouldn't yield much fidelity?
Click to expand...

My standing advice… If I could only recommend one thing to improve an artist’s music (to make it stand out) it would be to master it to tape.

Of course not all music will benefit from analog mastering, because nothing can make it not sound terrible (was that grammatically correct?) Eh, you know what I mean… :)
 
Good advice, as you always give, Zee :) :) :)

Now the sound I'm getting is not too digitally cold, even though tracking on a hard disk recorder, I think mainly in part to joemeek recording channel. So it is not really that I am dissatisfied with my audio quality, more that I am wondering if I should be mixing down to a digital recorder. As I said, it will eventually end up 1s and 0s to post or produce for anyone to listen to unless they were to come to me, the source...well, the mastering deck would be the one they came to hear. I am not thinking that I need one at this point, but more doing some pre-emptive homework in case I feel my setup grows at some point.
 
Beck said:
... nothing can make it not sound terrible (was that grammatically correct?) Eh, you know what I mean… :)
Click to expand...
I think what you mean is this: "You can make any thing to be better. However, by making terrible thing better you make it more terrible." :D
 
Beck said:
My standing advice… If I could only recommend one thing to improve an artist’s music (to make it stand out) it would be to master it to tape.

Of course not all music will benefit from analog mastering, because nothing can make it not sound terrible (was that grammatically correct?) Eh, you know what I mean… :)
Click to expand...

The Analog King...Beck, I have always valued your advice and recommendations, so no reason to stop now. I'd like to pick your brain a little, though....there are always minor improvements you can make, and it seems an infinity of what the possibilites are to "improve" a sound, so I'm just curious I guess as to why you would strongly recommend tape here. Tape for 'mastering' or mixdown, or both?
Mixdown deck, 1/2 track (or 2 track stereo??)...I think you guys tried to explain this to me a few months back. Sorry, but I still don't get it :( :( :o :(
 
Because tape has a way of unifiing the sound in a way that digital doesn't. A half track because you get more bang for the buck. And mixing down to tape before digital may help control peaks that could otherwise cause digital clipping.
 
Yeah, Steve, all these "little" things and some more...
SteveMac said:
Because tape has a way of unifiing the sound ...
Click to expand...
...poetically speaking:

"All the pieces fall into place
When we walk these fields..."
...from This Heaven
 
Half-track is actually two track stereo, but the width of the tape is used in one direction, so you can't flip it over and continue recording.

The advantage is more track width.

Here is another advantage of mixing to r2r analog and something to consider for future recordings.
Since you are going from digital to analog when you mix to the r2r you are converting anyway, so no reason to worry about the initial digital recording format. You can and maybe should record at a sampling rate higher than 44.1k.
If I plan on mixing to the r2r, I track at 48k. This retains more frequency response which a properly set up 1/4" half track at 15ips will be able to capture. It sounds good.

Also, it never hurts to have that extra mixdown recording (r2r tape) as an archive!
 
Hey Seeker,
Do any of your tracks on your MSR work properly, with or without NR? If they do, I suggest trying to mix a song or two onto that, and if you like what it's doing to the sound, try going the analog route again with a 2 track machine.

If your MSR doesn't work, and you'd like to hear the difference, you could make a CD mix of a song, mail it to me, and I'll put it on my Tascam 22-2 then bounce it back to CD. I know this will be one extra digital generation, but you should be able to hear how it'll color the sound. PM me if you're interested.

-MD
 
Cool, thanks man. All of the tracks on the MSR work, it is just the NR that doesn't. It is still set up for GP9 and with only two tracks, the hiss would probably be minimal, so maybe I'll do that. Probably wouldn't be as big-sounding as a 1/2 track deck due to the tape width of two channels on the MSR, 1/32"per track, compared to 1/8" per track, right? But I guess it would be a great way to gauge the overall "effect" I think is what you are say. Just curious and want to get some ideas...what machines do you guys own that you mixdown to?
 
I use a Tascam 22-2, don't have any noise reduction. There is hiss, it's not as clean as using NR, but it's not too bad and can run at 7.5 or 15 ips. The tape mine is set up for is Quantegy 407. Different tape types and operating levels are all going to handle the sound uniquely. For instance, GP9 will sound a lot different than 407, as it won't saturate like 407 will.

Another popular deck is the Tascam 32.

-MD
 
With half track (TASCAM 22-2, 32, 42, 52) you get to play with more tape "real estate" (hope you don't mind Jeff ;) ) which yields more signal to tape, headroom, less distortion and hiss (even with no NR and especially with better tape formulations) plus you get nice things which happen to the instruments when you mixdown to tape - "unifying" per SteveMac.
 
SEEKER,
I think they said GET THE MACHINE.
It's just that they all said it in such nice ways & with sooooo much useful extra info.
Guess what?
THEY are
R I G H T.
Don't stand and gape - put it to tape.
 
Soundzz like too much work, to me!!

........................ :eek:
 
Yeah, it's kind of seeming that way, isn't it? Damn, just when I was trying to get away from buying more gear and start actually building my room (14X14' extension onto the back of my stand-alone gargage structure...CBS to match the structure as well as integrity). Alright, there is one more thing I need to get before this and that is one more joemeek product for my drum kit. Not the cheapest route, but joemeek compressors do wonders to the sound of my DM Pro. It has six outputs...I run per output on the kick, snare, HH open, HH closed, toms, ride and crash. Snare, kick, toms, and cymbas I'm putting joemeek on. I am one compressor shy. After that, it seems it may be time to start looking.
I see 32s a lot and know they are popular. I've seen a few 42s and 52s on ebay. Both of those have balanced in/outs, right? Do all of them have record/reproduce/erase heads or does the 32 share record/reproduce like my MSR?
 
The 32 is a 3-head machine.

...................;)
 
Seeker of Rock,

If you do have serious plans for your music in terms of a professional release, mass production and so on, I believe you'll find most mastering engineers and their studios are more happy to work with a half track analog recording as this will represent more meat on the bone for them to play with and especially so if you want to remain compatible with what ever future generations of digital recordings that follow our current time and technology.

An analog, 1/2 track stereo recording gives you a juicy New York strip loin that's sure to fit nicely on what ever digital plate you wish to serve it on.

Cheers! :)
 
An analog, 1/2 track stereo recording gives you a juicy New York strip loin that's sure to fit nicely on what ever digital plate you wish to serve it on.
Click to expand...
Not only that, but they look cool too :D Especially an Ampex 440 ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top