using reel-to-reel in conjunction with DAW

[famous beagle]

I've heard of a technique where you track everything digitally and then run some of the tracks out one- or two-at-a-time through a 2-track reel-to-reel and back into the DAW in order to achieve analog warmth and/or tape compression. Does anyone know about this or know of any links that discuss this technique?

Thanks!

 

[BRDTS]

Actually, you just described the entire technique. System specifics as to routing, nudging of the tracks to allow for head delay etc all depend on the specific daw you're using. Some folks do a variation on the digital/analog thing by tracking on analog, then dump to digital. Or stay digital from the start and only mix down to analog for the final mix etc. No end to the possibilities. At various times, I use about every combination of daw/analog tape you can think of.

As to the results?

It's all personal opinion as to whether the results are cool or not worth the time hassle. You'll just have to try it and see what you think.

 

[famous beagle]

Thanks BRDTS. I guess I thought there was more to it, but now that I think about it, I suppose it's not as complicated as I thought. I'm looking forward to trying it out.

 

[Fletcher]

You will negate a lot of the possitive attributes of tape by recording to digital first and then using analog like a processing device... especially if you're using 'semi-pro' quality converters [like MOTU or RME stuff].

With that said... "analog tape" itself is not any kind of magic bullet... the deck to which you print has to be up to the task. If you're talking about something like a Tascam 80-8 you might as well not bother with that part of the process... if you're talking about a Studer deck or an Otari or an MCI then while the machine is capable of being a "positive" the care and feeding of that machine is of paramount importance.

You will need to know that you have a proper tape path alignment, proper tape path tensions, proper head alignment [azimuth, zenith and wrap] as well as a proper electronic alignment [level, frequency response and bias].

If you have all those things in order you may very well reap a benefit from tracking to analog then locking your digital machine [computer] to the analog deck and printing the stuff back to digital after you record analog. I have a system that can work that way in my place and we've been finding that over 60% of the time... after we've spent an hour or two making sure the analog deck is working flawlessly, we decide we like the digital print better and decide to shutdown the analog.

No, I'm not kidding.

I have also found that both the Thermionic Culture "Culture Vulture" as well as the Empirical Labs "FATSO Jr." see a lot more use in the way I work than my analog maching does [1987 MCI JH-24 w/85% remaining headlife on play and record rolling RGI 911 tape... tried it with GP-9 and just hated the shit, could have been from a bad batch (that happens some times)].

Best of luck with all you do.

 

[famous beagle]

You will negate a lot of the possitive attributes of tape by recording to digital first and then using analog like a processing device... especially if you're using 'semi-pro' quality converters [like MOTU or RME stuff].

With that said... "analog tape" itself is not any kind of magic bullet... the deck to which you print has to be up to the task. If you're talking about something like a Tascam 80-8 you might as well not bother with that part of the process... if you're talking about a Studer deck or an Otari or an MCI then while the machine is capable of being a "positive" the care and feeding of that machine is of paramount importance.

You will need to know that you have a proper tape path alignment, proper tape path tensions, proper head alignment [azimuth, zenith and wrap] as well as a proper electronic alignment [level, frequency response and bias].

If you have all those things in order you may very well reap a benefit from tracking to analog then locking your digital machine [computer] to the analog deck and printing the stuff back to digital after you record analog. I have a system that can work that way in my place and we've been finding that over 60% of the time... after we've spent an hour or two making sure the analog deck is working flawlessly, we decide we like the digital print better and decide to shutdown the analog.

No, I'm not kidding.

I have also found that both the Thermionic Culture "Culture Vulture" as well as the Empirical Labs "FATSO Jr." see a lot more use in the way I work than my analog maching does [1987 MCI JH-24 w/85% remaining headlife on play and record rolling RGI 911 tape... tried it with GP-9 and just hated the shit, could have been from a bad batch (that happens some times)].

Best of luck with all you do.

Thanks much for the info!

 

[MessianicDreams]

You will negate a lot of the possitive attributes of tape by recording to digital first and then using analog like a processing device...

could you expand on this a bit Fletcher? Recently i've been tracking to PT HD through a 192io, and then bouncing out to an Otari MTR90 and back into Tools, and am curious as to what you think of this as a pratice.


also you have ried any tape emulation plug-ins, and if so what did you think of them?

cheers,

MD

 

[MCI2424]

I've heard of a technique where you track everything digitally and then run some of the tracks out one- or two-at-a-time through a 2-track reel-to-reel and back into the DAW in order to achieve analog warmth and/or tape compression. Does anyone know about this or know of any links that discuss this technique?

Thanks!

Yeah. It is useless, Unless you are recording to tape, you are only adding the sound of the tape deck pre-amplifiers which are not always the best in and of themselves. You can't get "tape compression" unless tape is involved and if you are using a tape deck that either uses noise reduction or has low headroom in the recording circuits, you can't get tape compression at all.

Work on the sound in the recording itself with proper mic placement, good sounding instruments and decent equipment in a treated sound environment coupled with good mixing skills. There is no "warmth" that you can "add" later.

 

[famous beagle]

Yeah. It is useless, Unless you are recording to tape, you are only adding the sound of the tape deck pre-amplifiers which are not always the best in and of themselves. You can't get "tape compression" unless tape is involved and if you are using a tape deck that either uses noise reduction or has low headroom in the recording circuits, you can't get tape compression at all.

Work on the sound in the recording itself with proper mic placement, good sounding instruments and decent equipment in a treated sound environment coupled with good mixing skills. There is no "warmth" that you can "add" later.

I don't understand. How does the reel-to-reel know the difference between a pre-recorded signal that's coming from a line in or a live signal that's coming from a mic pre?

 

[MCI2424]

I don't understand. How does the reel-to-reel know the difference between a pre-recorded signal that's coming from a line in or a live signal that's coming from a mic pre?

The reel to reel doesn't but you can't get *tape compression* if you have no tape. Tape compression is the saturation of the magnetic field transferred to the actual tape. You have to be recording a signal to saturate the signal on tape. As Fletcher points out, and I avoided, this only works with pro level equipment as the home stuff doesn't have the massive headroom to run a signal that hot in the linear range.

If you only run a signal through the tape machine and roll no tape, you are only introducing the tape decks input AND output amplifiers adding good or bad artifacts to the signal.

 

[famous beagle]

The reel to reel doesn't but you can't get *tape compression* if you have no tape. Tape compression is the saturation of the magnetic field transferred to the actual tape. You have to be recording a signal to saturate the signal on tape. As Fletcher points out, and I avoided, this only works with pro level equipment as the home stuff doesn't have the massive headroom to run a signal that hot in the linear range.

If you only run a signal through the tape machine and roll no tape, you are only introducing the tape decks input AND output amplifiers adding good or bad artifacts to the signal.

Oh I see what you mean! I guess I wasn't clear enough in my original post. I did intend to actually record to tape and then bounce that back into the hard disk.

As far as the caliber of machine, I was thinking of something along the lines of a 2-track Otari (maybe like an MX 55, 5050, or MTR 10). (Of course it would be properly aligned, calibrated, and biased, etc.)

 

[famous beagle]

The reel to reel doesn't but you can't get *tape compression* if you have no tape. Tape compression is the saturation of the magnetic field transferred to the actual tape. You have to be recording a signal to saturate the signal on tape. As Fletcher points out, and I avoided, this only works with pro level equipment as the home stuff doesn't have the massive headroom to run a signal that hot in the linear range.

If you only run a signal through the tape machine and roll no tape, you are only introducing the tape decks input AND output amplifiers adding good or bad artifacts to the signal.

However, though, isn't it possible to record the signal to tape and have that signal instantly pass through the output at the same time? (There would be a slight delay, obviously.)

 

[MCI2424]

However, though, isn't it possible to record the signal to tape and have that signal instantly pass through the output at the same time? (There would be a slight delay, obviously.)

Only if you have a 3 head deck and that deck has no noise reduction and has enough headroom in the electronics to properly slam the tape without running out of steam (TASCAM and FOSTEX home machines will not do it)

MCI, Studer will.

 

[famous beagle]

Only if you have a 3 head deck and that deck has no noise reduction and has enough headroom in the electronics to properly slam the tape without running out of steam (TASCAM and FOSTEX home machines will not do it)

MCI, Studer will.

So ... Otari won't?

 

[MCI2424]

So ... Otari won't?

Only the non-narrow gap machines (read pro) have substantially better electronics to do this. The narrow cannot be run this hot because of the narrow gap head design. There would be too much crosstalk and noise. The electronics were designed to get a good signal within the range of recording.

So, pro Otaris will do it fine.

 

[famous beagle]

Only if you have a 3 head deck and that deck has no noise reduction and has enough headroom in the electronics to properly slam the tape without running out of steam (TASCAM and FOSTEX home machines will not do it)

MCI, Studer will.

The whole reason that I'm considering this route is because it seemed like a decent compromise between what I'd ideally want and what I can afford at this point. Ideally, I'd love a 24-track Studer, a huge board, and all kinds of outboard processors, but my budget is very limited at this point.

I had a Tascam 38 that was set up properly and running great. But I was never able to afford all the other things I needed (mixer and outboard FX/dynamic processors). On the few things I recorded with it (making do with my little 8x2 mixer by having to repatch when recording or listening back), I really liked the sound. But the problems were:

1. It required the use of a outboard mixer and outboard processors, which I can't afford at this time, and

2. 8 tracks wasn't enough to do what I'd like to do. (I'm mostly a one-man operation at this point.)

By replacing the R2R with a Yamaha AW16G, I got rid of the mixer problem, acquired some passable processors (for the time---remember I'm broke!), and obtained 16 tracks (not including the virtual tracks, of course). The downside is that I miss the sound of my R2R.

I'm not an expert on R2Rs and don't have any experience with Studers, MCIs, or other really hi-end stuff. I have experience with Tascam and Otari.

What I'm saying is that, since I liked the sound of the R2R I used (a lower end one, compared to MCI), would this method be a good compromise to get that sound and still have the flexibility that Yamaha affords (more tracks, FX, and editing capability)?

 

[famous beagle]

Only the non-narrow gap machines (read pro) have substantially better electronics to do this. The narrow cannot be run this hot because of the narrow gap head design. There would be too much crosstalk and noise. The electronics were designed to get a good signal within the range of recording.

So, pro Otaris will do it fine.

Ok, but how do I know the pro from the non-pro? Just about every Otari being sold on ebay is touted as "professional," and I'm sure that's not the case.

Thanks for your help, by the way.

 

[FALKEN]

(TASCAM and FOSTEX home machines will not do it)

MCI, Studer will.

My Fostex E-22 has +28 db headroom above +4dbu standard level. I think it will "do it". Only "it" I wouldn't really bother "doing". Even a tascam 32 with +18 or +22 db headroom above operating level should be able to get some compression without overloading the electronics (but it is possible to overload). MOL of 456 tape is +6 and I believe I read somewhere that distortion sets in at +12 so it should be possible to squeeze a little something out. Unless my thinking is totally along the wrong lines. I agree though that just mixing down to the recorder would be beneficial, no matter what "brand", as long as it is at least 1/4" half track and running good.

 

[famous beagle]

My Fostex E-22 has +28 db headroom above +4dbu standard level. I think it will "do it". Only "it" I wouldn't really bother "doing". Even a tascam 32 with +18 or +22 db headroom above operating level should be able to get some compression without overloading the electronics (but it is possible to overload). MOL of 456 tape is +9 and I believe I read somewhere that distortion sets in at +12 so it should be possible to squeeze a little something out. Unless my thinking is totally along the wrong lines. I agree though that just mixing down to the recorder would be beneficial, no matter what "brand", as long as it is at least 1/4" half track and running good.

How come? Would it not be comparable to tracking on the analog machine from the beginning? And if not, why not?

 

[FALKEN]

no it would not be comparable. the reason why not is because now the analog machine is capturing a digital copy, not the original. is a photocopy of a drawing as good as the original?

here's another way of thinking about it: is putting a compressor after an eq going to sound the same as putting the eq after the compressor? the same processes in a different order can equal different results.

 

[famous beagle]

no it would not be comparable. the reason why not is because now the analog machine is capturing a digital copy, not the original. is a photocopy of a drawing as good as the original?

here's another way of thinking about it: is putting a compressor after an eq going to sound the same as putting the eq after the compressor? the same processes in a different order can equal different results.

Wouldn't this depend on the accuracy of your digital system? I know my Yamaha isn't pro-level, but aren't pro-level digital systems praised for their transparency whereas analog systems are praised for their coloration?

I suppose comparable wasn't the right word. Wouldn't it get me closer to that sound though?