after recording to 2" how do you convert?

[RKrizman]

Originally posted by echorec
I agree, the tape sound does not seem to "happen" when you go from digital to 2". I don´t know why though, any ideas?

The main difference between a digitized signal and the original signal from the preamp is that the digitized signal has had everything over 20 k eliminated. My conjecture would be that frequencies over 20 k present in the original signal, although not audible themselves, interact with the electronics or tape in a fashion that creates subharmonic artifacts which are audible. And often desireable. (pure conjecture--no flames please)

Wasn't it a shocker when everyone found out that the Aphex Aural Exciter (even the overblown name brings a smile now) was nothing more than some cheap overdriven part adding a little high end distortion to your signal.

-R

[Jose Mrochek]

Yep, that sounds like the reason to me.

[adamcal]

I agree its better to go to tape first, however tape will still compress (or slow down) the spikey transient peaks weather its from the analog source or off a DAW. for me thats one of the biggest drawcards of tape. Average level up.

Remember many high end people still mix to analog (and prefer it) from digital multitracks all the time (mostly 1/2 inch) and this happens with both in the box and spread out on a desk mixes. so its often a case of 2" into daw into desk into 1/2".

[RKrizman]

Originally posted by adamcal
I agree its better to go to tape first, however tape will still compress (or slow down) the spikey transient peaks weather its from the analog source or off a DAW. for me thats one of the biggest drawcards of tape. Average level up.

Remember many high end people still mix to analog (and prefer it) from digital multitracks all the time (mostly 1/2 inch) and this happens with both in the box and spread out on a desk mixes. so its often a case of 2" into daw into desk into 1/2".

...and then into digital again. Good point. So a lot of people see the benefit in bouncing a whole mix out of the box to tape and (essentially) back. Certainly the only reason would be to add some sort of desireable distortion. I mean, the 1/2" tape is inevitably a less accurate version of the mix coming out of the box.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

-R

[echorec]

Originally posted by RKrizman
The main difference between a digitized signal and the original signal from the preamp is that the digitized signal has had everything over 20 k eliminated. My conjecture would be that frequencies over 20 k present in the original signal, although not audible themselves, interact with the electronics or tape in a fashion that creates subharmonic artifacts which are audible. And often desireable. (pure conjecture--no flames please)

Great explanation, thanks!

[Musiclab]

Originally posted by jon
The trick is to have the 2" be the position master and the DAW be the clock master.

In other words, the timecode track on the 2" gives the DAW the position but the 2" is slaved to the DAW clock and the DAW does not varispeed to the 2".

This provides fast lock-up AND minimizes jitter on the DAW.

Hmmm I've never heard of this. Do you mean with black burst?

[Jose Mrochek]

My only concern about the sound in the box, that we have now and why I asked about tape was the spiky frequencies that come off. Even though everything is sounding big and warm , some mid range and high frequencies are just coming out to straight and I want to round things off. I guess mixing on SSL and using high end EQ's should round things off.

[RKrizman]

Originally posted by Randall
screw a bunch of conversion, what happened mixing down to 1/4 or 1/2 inch and sending the crap off to mastering?

It still has to go back to digital at some point.

-R

[echorec]

Originally posted by Randall
screw a bunch of conversion, what happened mixing down to 1/4 or 1/2 inch and sending the crap off to mastering?

I do that.

Record to 2", transfer to digital via digi 192, mix through a console to my MCI 1/4" and bring the tapes to mastering.

[RKrizman]

Originally posted by echorec
I do that.

Record to 2", transfer to digital via digi 192, mix through a console to my MCI 1/4" and bring the tapes to mastering.

Yeah, as long as you're mixing analog and you have a nice 1/4" or 1/2" you might as well use it and let the mastering house do the digitizing. But if you're mixing in the box it would seem less desireable to go out to tape--it's a needless generation loss and at best can only be a less accurate representation of your digital mix. (Unless you're using it as an effect. ) If the mastering engineer wants to bounce it to tape, he can of course. Is that ever done?

-R

[echorec]

I agree, it´s pretty useless to send a "in-the-box" 2 track mix to tape.

[audiothings]

hey musiclab!
what console is that, in your studio?
self.

[recordista]

Originally posted by Musiclab
Hmmm I've never heard of this. Do you mean with black burst?

You feed LTC to the DAW from the 2" in order to keep it in sync (position) with your autolocator or machine remote, but lock the 2" capstan servo to the master clock or ADC's WC output.

[Musiclab]

Originally posted by audiothings
hey musiclab!
what console is that, in your studio?
self.

AMR produc tion series 1600, 32X16X32 88 inputs in mix,with megamix inboard automation

[7rojo7]

I've had great results doing 24tk Studer A80 Dolby SR at 15ips +9 on Ampex 499.
I transfer directly from the SR decoder which has dandy little trim pots to set levels. I am now abandoning this method though.

[Knox]

Yep . . .it seemd to work for Hendrix, Zep, Coltrane etc. Why does everyone want to 'edit' every damn thing? Because they can? Ever hear of "play it one more time and play it better"?

I track 2" here . . . NO computer (yet there are Macs here). If somone wants to rent a PT rig, we can, but I can't tell you the last time that happened.

Originally posted by Randall
screw a bunch of conversion, what happened mixing down to 1/4 or 1/2 inch and sending the crap off to mastering?

[Unbound]

OK, I'm another analog advocate, but I have found that mixing direct to Pro Tools has worked very well for me if I do a lot of my mixing during tracking. I know a lot of people out there are 'fix it in the mix' people, but I guess I'm not one of them. My last session was done on a really decked out Sony MXP-3000 (the John Hardy pres on this board sounded awesome!) and I just used some orban eqs, a variety of compressors, and maybe the the reverb on the tc electronic once, and got a great sound in pro tools. I think using some real 1176s and LA4s before you hit PT is a great way to do it.

Aaron
-Unbound Audio

[Musiclab]

Originally posted by Knox
Yep . . .it seemd to work for Hendrix, Zep, Coltrane etc. Why does everyone want to 'edit' every damn thing? Because they can? Ever hear of "play it one more time and play it better"?

I track 2" here . . . NO computer (yet there are Macs here). If somone wants to rent a PT rig, we can, but I can't tell you the last time that happened.

While I agree completely that the editing, shifting, tuning thing is totally out of control. I did a soundtrack album for a film with 50's music in it. It couldn't have been done without a computer, every note was tuned and moved, ******** right? I'm with you about play it one more time and better. When I produce that's my approach, however
in NY trying to earn aliving in this business and not being able to offer editing
is way too tough a way to go for me. What I do here is intergrate traditional recording approaches ala analog 2" with hard disk and midi