Reamping guitar to tape (or possibly drums)??

[recordman]

Let me say, I know *nothing* about recording to tape other than:

1. It's a pain in the ass (unless you're strictly working with professional musicians)

2. You can get some very desirable compression by overloading the signal.

One of my favorite plugins to use is a simple plugin bundled with Cubase called "magneto" it's basically a tape emulator. I own a very expensive Waves plugin bundle and I find myself enjoying the tape saturation plugin more than any. On distorted guitar it's wonderful. Now of course no plugin is going to be as good as the real thing...

When I reamp guitar,(when the tracking is all done) I send a clean guitar signal out to a guitar amp from my DAW and get amp dialed in and re-record the new tone.

I'm really excited by the thought that I could send the signal out to the amp and record the amp back to a tape machine and then re-record the tape back into my DAW with some nasty tape saturation/compression.

Two problems I foresee:

1. Sync. Have no idea if or how the tape machine would sync to the DAW, time stretching *is* a possibility if they're out of sync. Could be a nightmare unless there is something special.

2. I have no clue what kind of tape or tape machine would be the best for this.

3. In your opinion, is it worth the hassle?

Thanks

 

[Dr ZEE]

... is it worth the hassle?

No.


/regards

 

[recordman]

OK



Need 10 characters apparently

 

[miroslav]

It's actually pretty easy...and sync will not be much of an issue.

When the track is recorded back into the DAW...you just slide the new track and line it up with the original DAW track to account for the record/playback head time difference (assuming the tape deck uses separate heads).

If there IS any tape/time stretch/shift because the tape deck's transport is not fairly solid...it's easily adjusted in the DAW with some cut/move edits, since your guitar is not playing one continuous sound...they are notes...so just cut, move and line up the re-amped sections to the original track (it's there as a guide for you).
I doubt you will need to do more than 3-4 cuts along the length of the track…if that…and only if the tape deck is sloppy.

But I doubt you will even need to do any small cut adjustments...the tape deck is simply and external FX box for you...you put the sound in and record it right back...you are not trying to lock the DAW and tape deck together because it matters not where you are recording on the tape...you don't need to start on the tape at any given point...get it?
It's NO different than using a tape delay rig.

I've done the same thing with a few tracks when I wanted to "analog-ize" them some more...and when they come back into the DAW...they just slide into place.

 

[recordman]

It's actually pretty easy...and sync will not be much of an issue.

When the track is recorded back into the DAW...you just slide the new track and line it up with the original DAW track to account for the record/playback head time difference (assuming the tape deck uses separate heads).

If there IS any tape/time stretch/shift because the tape deck's transport is not fairly solid...it's easily adjusted in the DAW with some cut/move edits, since your guitar is not playing one continuous sound...they are notes...so just cut, move and line up the re-amped sections to the original track (it's there as a guide for you).
I doubt you will need to do more than 3-4 cuts along the length of the track…if that…and only if the tape deck is sloppy.

But I doubt you will even need to do any small cut adjustments...the tape deck is simply and external FX box for you...you put the sound in and record it right back...you are not trying to lock the DAW and tape deck together because it matters not where you are recording on the tape...you don't need to start on the tape at any given point...get it?
It's NO different than using a tape delay rig.

I've done the same thing with a few tracks when I wanted to "analog-ize" them some more...and when they come back into the DAW...they just slide into place.

Ok so there is a record head on the tape deck followed by a playback head so you can just record it right after it is written to tape at the same time? Killing two birds with one stone? So what kind of tape machine would be good for this? Listen to how much of a n00b I am with this whole "tape" thing. I'm all used to my copy and paste

 

[miroslav]

Any decent 1/4" 2-track will do the job...and you can also use the 2-track for possible stereo mixdowns, which you can then bring back into the DAW for mastering, that way you can give the entire mix some tape flavor.
I like to mixdown from my DAW through an analog console and outboard processing into an Otari 5050 BIII...and then back to the DAW.

The Otari 5050 stuff is all over eBay (a bunch of them right now)...also TASCAM...Fostex...etc...a nice 15ips machine will work, and these can be gotten for decent prices.

You just have to look for the ones that are in good shape and fully functional...so you don't get in too deep with fixing...but, every deck needs maintenance/adjustments...so you have to dive in a bit.
It's not like a computer w/software.

 

[Dr ZEE]

here are few more "characters" ....

...

I'm really excited by the thought that I could ... re-record the tape back into my DAW with some nasty tape saturation/compression.

....

You will not get "nasty tape saturation/compression" ... (regardlessly of what machine/tape and how you use), because there's no such thing.
The "tape saturation" isn't something that can be "described" by the word "nasty"...not even close. That "effect" is pretty hard to actually hear (or say - recognize), and it's VERY hard to describe by words.

To get that so called "tape saturation" and NOT something else (Instead!!!) is actually a hassle, especially for someone who is a beginner to tape recording.

It simply isn't worth the hassle, because you aren't going to get what you "expect" (or better say: what you imagine).

...

....
3. In your opinion, is it worth the hassle?

I am not saying that it is impossible to do (technically speaking) nor that it's way too hard in general for anybody , it's just (imo, as question was posted) not worth the hassle, given the "expected result" as some nasty tape saturation/compression!!!!.



********
a side note, (off topic, that is ):
You CAN get real great recordings period by using tape recorder(s). And in that context! - Yes, it worth the hassle.
You may be very surprised or even shocked by the result you get

good luck

 

[recordman]

Hi Dr. Zee when I said "Nasty tape compression" or whatever that was more along the lines of a satire comment. Not really serious about that but I do understand what it does. I'm not an amateur by any means and I'm sure I can handle it.

Thanks

 

[miroslav]

Yeah...tape compression is more subtle than people realize, compared to what you can do with a hardware compressor...which is why I prefer to think if it as an "analog-ize" effect, though not really an FX.

Tape has a way of "melting" all your sounds into a more cohesive vibe, especially when doing mixdowns. For individual tracks, it takes out some of the hard contrasts, the edgy clarity that digital usually captures easily.