recording to my vcr?!?

JHOOKS

New member
lately i've been thinking about using my vcr to try to warm up my sounds. I was using outboard gear a few years ago but some how I got focus on the digital plugins, but they lack the depth to my ears. So has any body tried recording to a vhs? does it sound warmer? does it destroy the sound? no idea how would i sync the vcr but hey just an idea.

peace

soundclick.com/jhooks
 
JHOOKS said:
lately i've been thinking about using my vcr to try to warm up my sounds. I was using outboard gear a few years ago but some how I got focus on the digital plugins, but they lack the depth to my ears. So has any body tried recording to a vhs? does it sound warmer? does it destroy the sound? no idea how would i sync the vcr but hey just an idea.

peace

soundclick.com/jhooks


I think it would sound not so hot... Bad Idea, in my opinion. If you want color, in my opinion, the top 2 things that will give you that are
1.) the mics(gefells, akgs, neumanns are "warm" mics, some of them anyway)
2.) the preamp selection..transformer based or tube pres (real tubes, not ones put in there for looks) will color the sound nicely..

to a lesser extent the mic configuration will even color the sound, with XY being the thinnest of the configs as far as depth and warmth..ORTF or DIN being the ones that are the fullest.
..
 
what about for the synths? Im sick of the digital word and the plugins they dont do it for me. why wont it be a good idea? will it kill the sound?
 
JHOOKS said:
what about for the synths? Im sick of the digital word and the plugins they dont do it for me. why wont it be a good idea? will it kill the sound?

for the synths??
what do you mean??I dont see how recording into a VCR would warm things up..maybe tube amps for the synths or tube pres..
 
what i mean is that sometimes the synths i use are so bright and lack character. honestly i dont have money for tube amps and pre's. this is just a theoritical question.

not a joke, i just like to try weird ass things on my music. i like to experiment. thats all.
 
Last edited:
Sound

I've heard of recording to VCRs with success....

Don't you have to have a video input to sync the tape heads?
 
Recording to VHS

Check This Link

I don't know much about VCR record heads, but they are analog and the sampling rate is very high... Far above the space needed for audio bandwidth.

Couldn't tell you what kind of bandwidth they allot, but with 1/2" or 3/4" tape I'd think there'd be plenty of room for at least 30-15k Hz.

I'll bet you could get a whole show on one tape. Better yet, while you're rolling the VHS, use a cheap camera for your video input and get some images too...

I hear beta and uMatic are even better quality.

I've tried the VCR recording without sync and it didn't work for me at the time. Maybe I should get back into it now that I have a master clock. Anyone find any links or threads on VCR recording?
 
People used to master to HiFi vhs because it sounded better than cassette. It doesn't warm up the sound, it just sucks less than cassette.
You won't be able to sync a vcr to your computer unless you have a wordclock output on your computer and a wordclock input on the vcr. A vcr with sync capabilities will run thousands.
There are 2 inherent problems.
1. autoleveling will add a bad compressor in the path.
2. The hifi audio signal is encoded in the picture information and will suffer from the effects of the scanning frequency (14.5k) and the 25 frame per second playback.

If you are looking for 'analog warmth' you would be better off with cassette than a vcr. You would be best off using better sounds.
 
a vcr(video cassette recorder) is what you play your vhs with. This was my extreme idea. I have good sounds. I justs dont like the aveage sounding mixes. I like unqiue stuff. Like ken lewis and manny marriquin, anyway im blapping. what about recording to digibeta? lol :) just kidding peace

i actually work with digibeta lol
 
I actually used to use a VCR to lay down tracks when I was 16 in the basement of my parents house, because I didn't have a cassete recorder, but I did have a small mixer.

Also back in the day when tapes were only 30 minutes a side, I used a VCR to record church services, then dump them onto tape so that there was no delay when the tape would switch sides while recording. Quality wise, maybe a bit better than cassette, but a mile away from digital, or a real to real.

On another note, I still have an 8track and some blank 8 track cassettes, if you are interested.
 
boomtap said:
I actually used to use a VCR to lay down tracks when I was 16 in the basement of my parents house, because I didn't have a cassete recorder, but I did have a small mixer.

Also back in the day when tapes were only 30 minutes a side, I used a VCR to record church services, then dump them onto tape so that there was no delay when the tape would switch sides while recording. Quality wise, maybe a bit better than cassette, but a mile away from digital, or a real to real.

On another note, I still have an 8track and some blank 8 track cassettes, if you are interested.

i guess im being a bit extreme, digital is so damn harsh. i guess a vcr wont help much, but does 0's and 1's algorithms cant be much help either. i might just have to stack up on some outboard gear. i think i'll pass on the 8track stuff lol but thanks for the offer man! :)
 
I have to agree with the Bear. Good digital give you back what you give it. Unfortunately, cheap audio tends to be harsh sounding and digital recordings don't do anything to mask it. Just like with anything else, you get what you pay for. Cheap digital is grainy and harsh sounding, cheap analog is muddy and undefined.

Digibeta is digital, so you are back where you started from. Anyway, if you were to go out and buy the video equipment, you would spend more than you would on a quality digital interface. Video machines are designed to give you a great picture, audio is always an afterthought.
 
Farview said:
I have to agree with the Bear. Good digital give you back what you give it. Unfortunately, cheap audio tends to be harsh sounding and digital recordings don't do anything to mask it. Just like with anything else, you get what you pay for. Cheap digital is grainy and harsh sounding, cheap analog is muddy and undefined.

Digibeta is digital, so you are back where you started from. Anyway, if you were to go out and buy the video equipment, you would spend more than you would on a quality digital interface. Video machines are designed to give you a great picture, audio is always an afterthought.

im actually a video editor, so i now all about video editing(or atleast i know alil bit). i think my setup it pretty decent what you guys think?

specs
pentium 4 2.8ghz
1 gigram
event ps8 monitors
tascam fw1884 interface/board
120 gig sata drive
300 gig external drive
winxp home edition
rhode nt1a condenser mic
nuendo
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
What a complete load of total bullshit................ :rolleyes:

Clearly you've never heard high-quality digital audio......

first off chill man, no need for that. and second i guess working for wyclef at a multi million dollar recording is not high quality,? and if you ever been to any of the big studios, they use protools for strickly tracking they never use the plugins for mixing,they use the outboard gear for mixing. even the ssl 9000 xl k is "analog base". and if digital is so great why do most of the big studios still layoff to tape. lets see alicia keys, kanye west, nelly all the top names dont rely on digital.
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
um, skippy.... THAT's digital......... duh.......... :rolleyes:

look man why are you being so sarcastic, really no need for that? and if you track to protools and mix with analog outbear gear you not mixing digitally. you effecting the signal with analog gear please explain hows thats digital? when most of the pro's track they usually patch the mic throw outboard gear such as la2a's neve preamps etc then go in to protools. when you record at home and mix with plugins thats digital.
 
Back
Top