after recording to 2" how do you convert?

[gem]

hello,
i would like to know how most of you people who are recording
bands(rock) on tape 2" 24trax are converting this afterwards?

next question is: does the room image-depthness you get on tape change after getting into the box? i know it depends on
converters but lets say you have good ones.

and then when mixing-do you do your dynamincs and eqs outboard?

i have just listened to a mix by tony hoffer(beck,phoenix) and read
that he works this way. it sounds really good.

thanx a lot

[jazzius II]

I think the point is that these people hit tape first to take advantage of the compression and fatness it gives the tracks......what they do afterwards is not really connected.......presumably you want to get the tracks into the digital domain thru good converters, but after that you can do anything you like (mix ITB, OTB, whatever).....or you could stay analog if editing is not needed.

[Musiclab]

I don't convert unless I need to fix something, if I need to fix something I blow it in the computer, fix it, then I put it back on the 2". I use the hard disk
for more tracks beyond the 2". I mix on an analog console.

[echorec]

Hi Gem,

I work like that. Record to 2" to get the sound jazzius described. Then I transfer everything through Digidesign 192 converters, edits & overdubs in the box, then mix from the box through an analog console.

I don´t think the room image-depthness you get on tape changes after getting into the box.

I do my dynamics and eq outboard or on the console when mixing.

[Jay Kahrs]

I leave things on 2" for the duration of the project. If I need to edit something I'll fly it over to the computer and then back to tape.

[Jose Mrochek]

Hello, I wanted to ask you guys what you thought of this

We are currently recording my album through a Amek 9098 mic pre, directly to Mackie MDR HD recorders. (2 of these) Then my engineer transfers these through ADAT optical into protools (001). He does all the editing in the box. And then sends the edited tracks back to the MDR recorders. This is how we are managing the shortage of tracks in the 001. (this is the tracking part)

Now, we will be mixing at a studio where 2" tape machines are available. Do you guys think it's a good idea, to take the MDR machines and transfer the tracks to 2" tape and mix from there ? to get the nice tape sound ?? Would you take all the tracks in protools and open up a session at the studios HD system and then transfer them to tape ??? Can you open a 001 session in a HD system ? Please let me know what you think, I really appreciate it. thanks!

[drundall]

Originally posted by echorec
Hi Gem,

I work like that. Record to 2" to get the sound jazzius described. Then I transfer everything through Digidesign 192 converters, edits & overdubs in the box, then mix from the box through an analog console.

This is what I'm doing. The amount of instruments I run to tape is inversely proportional to the amount of work I'm going to need to do.I've done projects where everything went to tape then got dumped to PTHD for vocals and mixing. Sounded great. Other times it's only drums as I have to do extensive editing. Lately I've been recording drums right into PT to edit from multiple playlists to a click. I'd rather just record great drummers to tape, but hey who wants to shell out cash for a great session drummer these days?
Now I'm happy if they don't hit the mics-sad...grudge

[adamcal]

when I record on 2" I usually transfer into the box for mixing and Mix in the box.

I am becoming addicted to 100% mix recall's in a few seconds, no patching, no setting outboard, just the song (mix) exactly as I left it.

Sure there are sonic arguments both ways and these are already discussed at length here and elsewhere, but for me the advantage of being to revisit mix over and over again till its perfect is unbeatable.

days, weeks later, open the song, make the minor tweaks, run it off, my clients love it, its very liberating not being committed to a mix.

I love mixing a 10 song album, a song a day then on the 11th day revisit them all for touchups (everyone's had a chance to listen to them all and live with them)

then a week or two later, final touchups if there are any before mastering. Sure you can still do that on a desk and outboard stuff, but what a pain in the ass.

I am learning to live with it, even like digital mixing, I am correctly dithering, keeping my eye on plugin latency if there is any especially keeping clipping (internal and external) under control.
If you do it right It can sound great. if you dont you can expect all the bad things people say about digital to come true.

then a week or two later, final touchups if there are any before mastering. Sure you can still do that on a desk and outboard stuff, but what a pain in the ass.

I am learning to live with it, even like digital mixing, I am correctly dithering, keeping my eye on plugin latency if there is any especialy keeping clipping (internal and external) under control.
If you do it right It can sound great. if you dont you can expect all the bad things people say about digital to come true.

but love all my analog colored stuff on the way in.

[jon]

FWIW I do recalls all the time of all-analog mixes and it's not a troublesome thing to get it all back. Clients do likewise. Just takes a little more time, which is delegated to an assistant anyway.

Nowadays if there are fewer then 10-20 edits to make and it's a rock thang, I'll stay with the 2" and get my razor out. Cutting tape doesn't require big talent and it's not that slow either. I like the fact that in addition to avoiding the dig AD/DA, the edits are chosen without looking at a computer screen....not as small a detail as one might think imho.

Otherwise, most projects that I see being done with tape are tracked to tape, then dumped to PT for editing, then mixed from PT spread out on the SSL using the console and outboard.

[RKrizman]

Originally posted by drundall
[ I'd rather just record great drummers to tape, but hey who wants to shell out cash for a great session drummer these days?

Well since you ask, I do. And you should too. (I mean, you should at least want to, even if you can't).

-R

[RKrizman]

Originally posted by jon
[B]FWIW I do recalls all the time of all-analog mixes and it's not a troublesome thing to get it all back. Clients do likewise. Just takes a little more time, which is delegated to an assistant anyway.

It's certainly not troublesome if somebody else does it!

Most people in this discussion probably don't have an assistant, nor do they own a recording setup and overall support system such as you have that would actually make it worthwhile to go to the trouble to recall mixes. And in most cases, to make that investment now would not be a good business move.

But certainly, were I you, I would do exactly what you do, and hope that I continue to have paying clients to support that methodology and overhead.

-R

[RKrizman]

Originally posted by Jose Mrochek
Do you guys think it's a good idea, to take the MDR machines and transfer the tracks to 2" tape and mix from there ? to get the nice tape sound ?? ]

For awhle I was in the habit of taking my PT recorded tracks and recording them onto my JH-24 2" and then back in. However, I usually ended up liking the non-transferred tracks better at the end of the day, and pretty much don't bother doing this anymore. I think it has something to do with committing myself to a medium and getting the sound I like in that medium when I track. To exaggerate the point, let's say if I record the perfect vocal track, with just the right proximity effect and high end, and with the perfect tonal delivery from the singer, why would I want to muddy it up by bouncing it to tape?

OTOH, for whatever reason, I think if you go to tape first you stand a better chance of getting that tape vibe that you love.

-R

[jon]

Originally posted by RKrizman
Most people in this discussion probably don't have an assistant, nor do they own a recording setup and overall support system such as you have that would actually make it worthwhile to go to the trouble to recall mixes. And in most cases, to make that investment now would not be a good business move.

This is the high end forum, Rick. It's OK to talk about assistants here.

BTW many project studios and producer studios have assistants or interns too.

[jon]

Originally posted by RKrizman
For awhle I was in the habit of taking my PT recorded tracks and recording them onto my JH-24 2" and then back in. However, I usually ended up liking the non-transferred tracks better at the end of the day, and pretty much don't bother doing this anymore.

There are a number of factors involved....first, if one wants that tape thing, my thought is that it would usually be better to track to tape first and either stay there or then go to PT, rather than PT - tape - PT.

I also find that tracking to tape then dumping to PT tends to sound better to me than tracking to PT then dumping to tape. That's a personal opinion, of course.

Also ... a JH-24 has a rather specific sound, one that might not be generalizable to ATRs in a larger sense.

And a lot depends on the condition of the ATR, how is it aligned, tape choice, flux choice, head condition, etc. Makes more difference than the quality of the dig converters and clock (which are important too).

[Musiclab]

Originally posted by jon
There are a number of factors involved....first, if one wants that tape thing, my thought is that it would usually be better to track to tape first and either stay there or then go to PT, rather than PT - tape - PT.

I also find that tracking to tape then dumping to PT tends to sound better to me than tracking to PT then dumping to tape. That's a personal opinion, of course.

I agree, I wouldnt dump to tape, but then I don't think of tape as an effect box. It's more the way I prefer to record, and I like the reliability of tape.
Since I do alot of high track count and input mixes I'm often using both together. BTW I can recall a huge mix in about 2 hours

[RKrizman]

Originally posted by jon
This is the high end forum, Rick. It's OK to talk about assistants here.

BTW many project studios and producer studios have assistants or interns too.

Jon, I wasn't implying that it's not okay to talk about assistants. But I think to say that something is easy to do because you can have your assistant do it begs the question at least a little bit. Surely he has "some" value. There's also the cost of the analog setup that would even require you to have an assistant to do these recalls in the first place. And the real estate to justify having all that analog gear. And the maintenance costs. And so forth.

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that you are the owner or manager of a top flight tracking and mixing multistudio complex in a major metropolitan area, with large, tweaked tracking rooms and a number of very expensive analog consoles. And a permanent staff to go with it.

If that's your scenario, and you're already "there", there's a lot to be said for continuing your methodology, at least if you're making a go of it business-wise. However, I venture to guess that for most of the readers here, relying on recalling large analog SSL mixes isn't such a routine or easy thing.

I too hire assistants, on a project by project basis, but having them recall an analog mix is never one of their jobs.

And I am a high end sort of guy, too. Really, I am. (Believe it or not I just had to have a whole mix recalled, on an Oxford. I'm not quite sure how it works, but I'm fairly sure an assistant somewhere had to go push a "recall" button.)

Best of luck,
-R

[RKrizman]

Originally posted by jon

I also find that tracking to tape then dumping to PT tends to sound better to me than tracking to PT then dumping to tape. That's a personal opinion, of course.

Also ... a JH-24 has a rather specific sound, one that might not be generalizable to ATRs in a larger sense.

And a lot depends on the condition of the ATR, how is it aligned, tape choice, flux choice, head condition, etc. Makes more difference than the quality of the dig converters and clock (which are important too). [/B]

Yes, well I'm comparing my experience of recording straight to tape and then transferring to PT with recording to PT then transferring to tape and back. In both cases the JH-24 is the same, and in my estimation sounds quite nice, so that's not really a factor in the discussion.

That said, we are in agreement as to which is the better methodology.

-R

[drundall]

Originally posted by RKrizman
Well since you ask, I do. And you should too. (I mean, you should at least want to, even if you can't).

-R

If you do that's great. If you're suggesting that I pay for a client to have a session drummer and work for free, nope, sorry. We all have wants but they don't sound good on CD.

[drundall]

Originally posted by jon
Nowadays if there are fewer then 10-20 edits to make and it's a rock thang, I'll stay with the 2" and get my razor out. Cutting tape doesn't require big talent and it's not that slow either

Jon I agree if you're splicing in sections but as soon as you're talking about moving kicks and snares you're talking about the slow boat to insanity. As we both mentioned, depends on the amount of work needed.

PS a well maintained JH24 can sound great on rock stuff, especially faster stuff.

Cheers all and everyone has different ways of working, it's all about the results.

[Jose Mrochek]

Ok, to clear things up. You guys are telling me that it's worthless to go from PT to Tape and then back to PT. I'm better of just staying inside PT ? If it was tracked to it in the first place ? Thanks, I say this because I got a bit confused because it is clear to me you guys prefer to track to tape, but is not clear if it's completely worthless to do it the other way. thank you

[adamcal]

I would not say its worthless, just not prefered. But anything is possible.

I tracked a entire album in the DAW, then then client got it into his head that he wanted the "analog sound"

no problemo, dump to 2" and back. some songs had over 60 tracks, so it had to come back into the DAW

I kept all the original digital tracks and put the Analog dumped ones next to them, after a lot of A/B'ing and many hours on the clock some tracks went one way some the other, some sounded the same. Either way I got a lot of extra studio time offering the option.

personaly his music sucked so hard that I didnt have an opinion what sounded better. but they (the digital-analog-digital) tracks didnt suffer overly from the trip.

for the record, there was no way these monkeys could have tracked to tape in the first place anyway, Im talking over 30 fulldropins, edits, fixes per 3 minute song!!

[RKrizman]

Originally posted by Jose Mrochek
[B]Ok, to clear things up.

Just to correct any misunderstanding, I almost exclusively track to ProTools, and scarcely use my 2" for anything anymore. I think it's probably time to do an analog project now, just for perspective, but I am enjoying the benefits of well recorded digital sound. I don't think it is objectively worthless to bounce out to 2" and back, for you may well prefer that sound. But for whatever reason, I feel that if you need a good analog tape sound you have a better chance of getting it on the way in rather than after you've digitized the source.

-R

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by Jose Mrochek
Ok, to clear things up. You guys are telling me that it's worthless to go from PT to Tape and then back to PT. I'm better of just staying inside PT ? If it was tracked to it in the first place ? Thanks, I say this because I got a bit confused because it is clear to me you guys prefer to track to tape, but is not clear if it's completely worthless to do it the other way. thank you

Basically yes.

How the tape machine is loaded imparts a lot to its character and tape machines just don't load the same as when you record straight into it.

To me the PT tracks always sounding kinda rubbery afterwards.

[Jose Mrochek]

Thanks for the replies, we will do as you say. I will not bother with the tape machines. Unforntunately, tape machines where not available for tracking. grudge

[Jules]

Hey!

2" / DAW folks!

isn't there a BIG difference in quality beween

1) transfering to or from 2" to a DAW that is chasing timecode on the 2"

and

2) Making the 2" chase the DAW (ie via a Lynx synchroniser)

... discuss please

[C.Lambrechts]

Originally posted by Jules
Hey!

2" / DAW folks!

isn't there a BIG difference in quality beween

1) transfering to or from 2" to a DAW that is chasing timecode on the 2"

and

2) Making the 2" chase the DAW (ie via a Lynx synchroniser)

... discuss please

I'm maybe of no real life reference but, in the limited experience I have had :

1) It's sometimes worth it going to 2 inch first, even if it isn't exactly the same after transfering it to tape, there's that little edge / character that's added by going to tape that will get translated to daw anyhow

2) don't like to make the 2inch chase the daw because in my case it makes the 2" master (JH-16 has no machine control) and that's a hassle. On the few times I have done it however it has been rocksolid, using the digi sync I/O for synchronisation.

Still, unless you have a tape with machine control that makes the tape slave to your daw, it's a hassle. And I avoid it so I put whatever was on tape in the daw.

[Musiclab]

Originally posted by Jules
Hey!

2" / DAW folks!

isn't there a BIG difference in quality beween

1) transfering to or from 2" to a DAW that is chasing timecode on the 2"

and

2) Making the 2" chase the DAW (ie via a Lynx synchroniser)

... discuss please

I would think the instance that might have the biggest difference is have either situation vs a 2" and daw that is completely resolved to house sync.
FWIW I use an aardvark Time sync II as clock from tc on my 2". I haven't noticed a difference in the audio quality between blowing tracks into the daw
slaved vs the daw running out of sync on its own clock. The aardvark clock is very good, I think its OEMed by Rosendahl, although I don't know if its as good as the nanosync. Also to me having the
2" chase the daw would be a pita way to work if say you had a larger than 24 track project and you need the daw and 2" both, which happens for me quite often. With the aardvark as the deck ramps up the daw is already in sync.

[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.

[jon]

Originally posted by RKrizman
for whatever reason, I feel that if you need a good analog tape sound you have a better chance of getting it on the way in rather than after you've digitized the source.

-R

Yes, this is what I tend to prefer too.

[echorec]

Originally posted by RKrizman
I feel that if you need a good analog tape sound you have a better chance of getting it on the way in rather than after you've digitized the source.

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?