Working in both the analogue and digital realm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gentlejohn
  • Start date Start date
gentlejohn

gentlejohn

New member
First off apologies for the length of this post - I have a lot on my mind! OK, so I was chatting with this bloke in the pub last night and he appeared to be FAR more knowledgeable than I when it comes to the whole technical side of music making!

As you might have read, I've recently had the good fortune to acquire a nice ol' Tascam 388 machine and I am really enjoying getting to grips with it. That said, I do have a couple of gripes namely the low available tracks count (just 8) and the whole editing/processing side of things (eg: I'm getting a fair bit of 'clunk' noise to tape when punching-in).

Having previously worked digitally (using a Mac running Logic Pro 9 set up) I have to say I do kinda miss all the infinite editing/processing features not to mention unlimited tracks. Don't get me wrong! I MUCH prefer the sonic warmth and intimacy of analogue sound and the actual recording side of things is GREAT fun on this Tascam - very musical which is what I desperately wanted to get back to. However, I have to admit, I'm really not very good at planning stuff and, as a result, I'm finding that I'm rapidly running out of available tracks in the middle of song projects going back to an 8-track recorder. I record on my own by multi-tracking but what this Tascam machine has brought to light is that my workflow practice is truly terrible as I guess I don't think far enough ahead using this thing! (When working digitally I would often build compositions up from say, a simple riff idea then perhaps loop bits and flesh out an arrangement that way being inspired to find other song part components (vocal melody, harmonies, more riffs, etc.) along the way.

The trouble I'm finding going back to analogue is the re-realisation (for want of a better phrase!) of how structured you have to be in the analogue domain in order to plan your arrangement properly. I suppose I just got lazy with the unlimited tracks at my disposal but, on the plus side, I did arrive with a lot of improvised digital compositions that way!

To date I've attempted to record five songs with the Tascam and seriously ran out of tracks on every song (I just had to leave the bells'n'whistles parts out that ordinarily I would have liked to have included). If I were to go back and re-record what I have tried to date I guess I could plan my recordings somewhat better (eg: get into bouncing to free up tracks, etc.) but, for me, it takes a lot of working things out in advance which I'm not so good at. (I just wish there was a Tascam 38-16 model - the same track count again that would suit me better!)

Anyway, back to this guy in the pub! He reckoned you can have the best of both worlds ie: by tracking in analogue then transferring the raw analogue tracks individually from tape into a DAW so you can go on to process & mix them from there. Anybody have any experience working like this? For starters how do you go about synching things up? (I often worked in the grid format in Logic which allowed me to loop sections so as to try out different song arrangements). Also, what if you want to bring more stuff in ie: you record your first batch of eight (eg: drums & percussion to a guide track) then you want to bring across a further eight tracks of say: lead vocal; acoustic stuff; bass; electric guitar stamped with all that lovely analogue warmth you bought the machine for in the first place? How can you get it all to play back 'in synch' once you've transferred all the tracks you need across? Seems like a big faff (in fact I'm feeling one of my famous migraines coming on just thinking about it!)

Hmm ... this is a weird call for me and already I'm feeling that I've been round the houses here. I used to record in analogue in my youth then took some time out from the whole recording side of things and, when I came back to it, I 'went digital' but always missed the sound of analogue. Now I've 'gone analogue' again but, having 'been digital' am now very aware of analogue's limitations compared to workflow in the digital realm. I suppose there's no easy solution - I just need to work this on out and find some kind of middle ground compromise that works for me I guess! Thing is, the whole reason I went back to working in analogue was because I was finding that making music with a computer was just too much like being at work but now, although I'm liking what I'm hearing coming back at me through the monitors analogue-wise, it's a whole lot more involved (especially from a 'one-man-performing-recording-producing-doing everything' perspective!) By comparison, having now spent ten (long!) sessions using the Tascam I can't help feeling a bit 'stunted' by it (especially compared to the unlimited track count and processing flexibility of working in digital.)

As you can tell, I'm now giving this whole analogue/digital cross-over idea some serious consideration as I need to find a working solution so I can finally just get back to making some music again so I'd be very interested to hear other folks thoughts and advice on all this. Obviously for simple arrangements like say just VOX & ACOUSTIC I would stick with working in analogue - it's really those larger productions I'm struggling with! For example: Here's the last thing I recorded digitally to give you an idea of what I attempt to do 'on my own' without a band behind me (to date I perform, record & attempt to produce all compositions myself - a kind of 'Jack of all trades - master of none' as it were!) I reckon would be really struggling working on my own to put together the following track with only eight tracks at my disposal: ROLLERCOASTER - TRIP - YouTube
 
Last edited:
First off...Nice tune and video.That was really cool!
Well I cant really help you with the transferring tracks to computer because I have no experience recording with computers.
Did dabble in digital at one point.I still own a Korg D1600 16 trk digital recorder,but haven't used it since I got the 388.Yeah, I threw away the extra 8 tracks that I could be using, but I have over time learned to plan things out with the 8 tracks.Actually I still use the Korg to record my scratch guitar track to a rhythm track that is built into the korg,then record that to track 1 of the 388 for a guide.Like you said...your having a hard time planning. But over time with some practice you'll be able to churn out multiple parts on an 8 track.I have recorded up to 14-16 tracks on my 388 all without any bad sound degradation.Accomplished with bouncing and using "space" within the tracks. For example, on a vocal track. When Im not singing,during an instrumental break,I can punch in parts on the vocal track up until the vocals come back in. It all takes a bit of patience and practice.But I can do this relatively quick now. And my workflow doesn't suffer.
Anyway do a search on these forums. Im pretty sure I can remember some 388 to computer questions have been asked in the past. And here is a stellar sounding 388 track.(not me) Showing you,what can be done with this cool old machine.

https://soundcloud.com/aaronzimmer/ambulance-chaser
 
Nice one Harv! It's mad how easily you can miss the 'obvious' stuff eh? Of course, I forgot above using 'the space between'! I've been dedicating entire tracks to individual sources ie: LEAD VOX; E.GTR; ACOUSTIC; BASS; etc. A lot of these sources I'm not playing throughout so yes, I'd forgotten about that, I can fill those spaces! Glad you liked my track. I'll go check out your link. By the way, I've ordered that book you recommended so hopefully that'll arrive in the next couple of weeks and I can get to work with it all in 2014. Thanks! All the best for the festive season and beyond .....
 
If you wanna send the tracks to a DAW and mix there you can get a Tascam 16 track soundcard pretty cheap.
I recorded one half of some friends album on a Fostex, bounced to DAW and then another guy mixed it.

Another option is a tecnique commonly refered to as pinging: for instanse you got three tracks of percussion on track 1, 2, 3 and 4. Match their level and send them to track five. When you're happy with their sound delete the original tracks.
That's a way for us to work around the fact that it'd sometimes be nice to have a 24 track or sync two machines.
 
Basically....if you need to drop tracks from tape to DAW in chunks....you need some kind of sync between the tape deck and the DAW...and you need a multi-channel interface/converter...like if you're dumping 8 tracks to DAW, you need an 8-channel converter box You don't want to try doing it with a 2-channel x 4 dumps.

In the most basic setup, you would/should be able to drop SMPTE code on your last tape track, then feed that to a SMPTE/MTC converter box (since most DAWs actually read MTC and SMPTE directly)...and then set up the DAW to chase/lock to the incoming code.

In theory....you would be able to then drop a bunch of tracks in the DAW....go back and erase them of the tape deck, leaving just a single music guide/cue, and then record more tracks in the now erased tracks, and then sync back up to the DAW and make another dump to it....etc...etc.

I do this as a regular thing and have been for many years now. I currently sync my 2" 24-track to my DAW and transfer tracks every sessions, though with the 24 tracks, I don't really do it because I run out of tracks (maybe sometimes), but more so because I may go back-n-forth once I dump the tracks, so like I may decide to re-record a track or two, and then I will need to sync up and transfer that also to the DAW.
When I was using my 16 track, I would regularly do at least 2 dumps to DAW because I would run out of tracks.

Anyway....there's already a ton of info on synchronizations, SMPTE, etc....here in the Analog forum, so do some keyword searches (sync, SMPTE, MTC, synchronization, transferring to DAW...etc...etc.) and you will have enough info to give you a headache and make you decide against doing it. :D
Actually, it's not THAT hard, but you need to be precise and you need to get your head around some of the technology and concepts, so that may or may not suit you.
My rig is pretty involved, so I don't want to run you down that path as your starting point....but I've posted enough about it here in the Analog forum, so I'm sure you will find it if you do some searches.
 
I don't think it's 'cheating' if you've got your feet planted firmly on the analog ground! I generally take a 'purist' standpoint for the most part, but there are practical considerations that are unavoidable. My main beef with computers is I just don't like recording music on them ... it's really more a workflow thing. I know a guy who records on a 388 ... I was talking to him once and he said that he'll 'put it in the computer to add little parts' ... I was like, 'oh you record in a computer?!?'. he said, 'I mean, it's just backing vocals and stuff' ... we all have our practical limitations. Try as I may to deny reality, it's sometimes inescapable !

PS -- cool sounds on your 388!
 
Last edited:
I feel a bit "Stunted" by unlimited tracks myself, but to each his own. I use synchronization... analog tape, traditional MIDI instruments and digital all together. My music gets pretty complex, but bouncing tracks gives me more than enough for most of what I do. I'm still an old school MIDI musician with lots of outboard keyboards and synth modules, so that last analog track is ALWAYS some form of sync code. The other seven tracks are for vocals, guitar, piano, etc. Using dbx I don't like to bounce tracks more than once, but that's usually enough. It does take some getting used to and planning, but since I've been doing it this way since the 80's its easy for me.

I find the mental process of bouncing and blending things as I go stimulates creativity in the music I'm building that doesn't happen when I'm working with endless digital tracks (or endless analog tracks for that matter). Recording is a process of limiting your choices in stages until you're down to the final 2-track mixdown. It works for me. I hear so much these days and have for a while now that sounds like the product of endless tweaking. Your mileage may vary of course.
 
I was using 4 track for years then came digital. I'd not "finished" many songs as, even with bouncing, I couldn't get everything on - particularly stereo or better drums.
I bought an 8 in digital interface, (more than I needed but was thinking about drums again) and went about transferring my analogue to digital very easily - no probs with sync as they were all going at the same time etc.
I then managed to augment some of those tracks in the digital realm.
I have used some additional tape for this & it did involve care with speeds etc but sliding tracks around in time within a DAW is pretty simple after all.
 
rayc said:
... but sliding tracks around in time within a DAW is pretty simple after all.
Click to expand...

Yes, seems simple... but this and other processes are what contribute to the deterioration we commonly refer to as "digital sounding." This sort of ITB sorcery is what destroys sound. It's not the simple conversion from analog to digital that's the problem, but the more you work with digitized audio the less benefit you have tracking analog in the first place. The real issue is processing something to death ITB. Then it all sounds the same... what is considered acceptable to put out these days.

Since I first became a member of this forum I've watched most everyone slowly but surely give up and settle for sounding like everyone else. Sad, but inevitable I suppose.
 
Beck said:
Yes, seems simple... but this and other processes are what contribute to the deterioration we commonly refer to as "digital sounding." This sort of ITB sorcery is what destroys sound. It's not the simple conversion from analog to digital that's the problem, but the more you work with digitized audio the less benefit you have tracking analog in the first place. The real issue is processing something to death ITB. Then it all sounds the same... what is considered acceptable to put out these days.

Since I first became a member of this forum I've watched most everyone slowly but surely give up and settle for sounding like everyone else. Sad, but inevitable I suppose.
Click to expand...

explains why some ADAT-type recordings still sound 'analog' I think !
 
Yeah.....I think over-processing ITB (which a lot of recording newbs certainly do) can ruin the audio...though honestly, I think the same can be said if your over-process in the analog domain.

Thing is....when working analog, there's not as much tendency to do that. It just doesn't happen. Maybe you toss an EQ and some compression on the track and that's about it in most cases. It's something about the misconception that newbs have where they seem to think that digital processing = magic....that it always improves the sound, so then they toss a half dozen plugs or more on every track....plus a bunch more on the mix bus.

Apart from that, basic manipulation of audio ITB doesn't really destroy things any more than what you had going in, IMHO, since most of the DAWs all work at a much higher precision level than what you had during conversion process, and I've been able to compare my tape tracks to the ITB tracks once they are transfered many times. Of course, I don't do complete mixing ITB, so my DAW work is mainly for edits, comps and basic "spot processing"...then I mix OTB...but I've done more extensive ITB work on some stuff, and I'm not really seeing any deterioration.

I really believe it's more about HOW people work ITB that can come out over the top and sometimes mangle the audio.
 
This is all really interesting (& massively helpful!) to me. Thanks so much to everyone who's contributed to my original post so far to date. Personally speaking, I have to admit, I'm in a 'strange place' where music recording is concerned of late! I started off in the '80s with 4 track cassette portastudios (eg: Teac, Fostex). The stuff I did was really rough I have to say. Not just in hindsight listening back now - I knew it at the time! I recorded really simply, no bouncing just the four tracks available and with no external effects or anything. My self-taught formative attempts at recording were purely personal demo tapes and nothing more. Then I started to get a bit more interested (obsessed/cursed!) with the whole 'art of recording and quest for better productions' side of things.

I very briefly owned a Tascam 388 which I 'think' I loved but sadly, no sooner had I got it, I dropped it down a stairwell during a move! When I couldn't procure another (pre-eBay times remember!) I consoled myself by getting a Boss BR8 then, later, a BOSS1600 recorder - so yeah, looks like I've 'gone digital' now! Thing is, I didn't have much success with either of these standalone digital recorders - I never liked 'the sound' (although I did appreciate those extra tracks!)

I then took some time out from music making, quite a long time as it turned out!!! When I eventually came back to it a lot had seemingly changed! Most of my muso-friends of yore had now made the switch and taken to recording music with computers. I fell in with this. I spent some some time working with a 'laptop producer' (Skrillex stole his thunder as it turned out!) plus I also invested in a Mac set up running Logic Pro 9. It very much felt like starting again from scratch to be honest!

In retrospect now, although I can appreciate the technology, when I think back I actually had FAR more fun making music when I first started out with a 4-track portastudio than I seem to do now! I didn't care about the production and, as a result, got far more musical ideas committed (to tape). With all the available tracks, options, software plug-ins etc that come with a computer-based DAW I seemed to spend far more time 'tweaking' than I actually did 'making music' which kind of defeats the object really! I felt at times that I was drowning in a sonic ocean of option paralysis (for want of a better phrase!) So I thought, "Sod this for a lark!" and finally, years down the line, managed to secure the unit I once owned briefly (before it came to that sorry end at the bottom of a stairwell!) Yes, I bought a c.1985 Tascam 388. To date I've had five full sessions just trying to reacquaint myself with it. Don't get me wrong, it's been fun again yet I miss those extra tracks I'd gotten used to having with the digital side of things.

I guess I just need to re-learn how to do this, get my mojo working again as it were and finally try to find some middle ground that works for me - I find it hard at times wearing all the hats! Essentially I'm a Songwriter by trade but my self-imposed job title's got a bit blurred down the line. Thing is, again if I'm honest, I'm not a very technical person! I try to be and, as I've got more into recording, I've want my recordings to be of an industry standard that will allow my compositions to get played on the radio for example but perhaps I've been trying too hard on that front to the detriment of everything else. Anyway, I've bought and am waiting for a book that will hopefully help that's been kindly recommended to me by a fellow forum member on here. Somewhere along the line I've got too bothered about 'the means of production' and my music composition has taken a back seat. I need to get back to the music - that's gonna be my new year resolution! I'm now aware I've spent far too many years farting about just trying to find a recording set up that works for me. Each to their own but, again speaking personally, I reckon the best way forward is actually to keep things simple. It's far too easy to get overwhelmed (and bogged down!) by the endless options available to us all nowadays. Good luck with it all people and thanks again for all your help! My interactive blogs on here of late have been a real catharsis for me this and, with your replies, have put a lot of things into perspective for me. CHEERS and here's to a very musical 2014!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top