Tracking through tape to daw or mixing to tape?

[The90049]

I just played this blues track really loud on my headphones, and I can hear the guitars from previous takes in the beginning, quieter sections.

I think on Zeppelin I, "You Shook Me" towards the end starting at the 5:38 mark, there is a ton of "reverse tape delay" bleeding in. The delay is first, then the "babe" vocals. Cool stuff.

I remember reading something a while ago that Jimmy Page did that intentionally.

http://AnalogMode.com/youshookmedelay.mp3

[Brad McGowan]

Originally Posted by Quint

So did you ever run this comparison test and, when you did, did you bounce it back into the computer or did you remain in the analog realm and mix off of tape?

I never did anything rigorous or remotely scientific, but I did bounce about 2/3rd's of an albums worth of drums to tape and back into the computer. I mixed from the computer by the way. My subjective impression is that it didn't strike me in the same way as the tracks that I tracked directly to tape and then mixed from the computer. Perhaps I wasn't hitting the tape that hard or in the same way when I tracked directly to tape. I know that's kind of vague, but I since I didn't do a more controlled test I don't want to draw incorrect conclusions.

One of things I'm hoping to do in the next few months is track a project to tape and then run two sets of mixes straight to 1/4". One will come off the tape and go through a mixer. The other mix will be transferred onto the computer and then be played back from the computer through the mixer onto the 1/4" machine.

Brad

[The90049]

Interesting how we tried a little bit here and there. I just started so I'm in phase 1 of learning still.

I assume there is nothing like the actual sound of drums, guitars, or vocals hitting tape directly from a microphone and preamp, but I guess if you have digital files, this seems to a be the closest way to get that result.

The converters play a big factor, as well as how hard it hits tape. The cool thing is you can manipulate it as many times as you want. I did an A-B test the first time. digital only, and tape with soft, medium, and hard hitting levels. the soft levels were too tame, and the hard levels +12 were too distorted on certain sounds, but awesome on others.

The method I used was with a pair of Apogee AD/DA-16X's. I have my sends labeled "Studer 1, 2, 3, etc" in PT. So during tracking or playback i just patch in a PT send to each track and control the levels from there (no plugins unless it's really needed).

I'm just curious since there is AD and DA conversion going on, if it changes the science of it.

If anyone here has a track they want to put on tape, email me and I'll try it. Maybe some classic rock stuff? It's free so I assume I can be picky

[Quint]

Originally Posted by Brad McGowan

I never did anything rigorous or remotely scientific, but I did bounce about 2/3rd's of an albums worth of drums to tape and back into the computer. I mixed from the computer by the way. My subjective impression is that it didn't strike me in the same way as the tracks that I tracked directly to tape and then mixed from the computer. Perhaps I wasn't hitting the tape that hard or in the same way when I tracked directly to tape. I know that's kind of vague, but I since I didn't do a more controlled test I don't want to draw incorrect conclusions.

One of things I'm hoping to do in the next few months is track a project to tape and then run two sets of mixes straight to 1/4". One will come off the tape and go through a mixer. The other mix will be transferred onto the computer and then be played back from the computer through the mixer onto the 1/4" machine.

Brad

See, this is what I've been wondering about. Perhaps it's not the culprit, but I've been wondering if the second round of conversion was, in fact, the primary cause for people preferring the tape to digital over digital to tape. I wonder how these methods would compare if the digital (using a high sample rate) was transferred to tape and left in analog to be mixed instead of sending it back into the computer again. The second round of conversion certainly can't help matters.

Has anybody done it this way and what were your thoughts?

[u b k]

Originally Posted by The90049

I think on Zeppelin I, "You Shook Me" towards the end starting at the 5:38 mark, there is a ton of "reverse tape delay" bleeding in. The delay is first, then the "babe" vocals. Cool stuff.

sounds like they printed the effect with the multitrack tape on backwards, which is why the first echo hits before the voice.

i think you might be confusing this with the ghost 'way down inside' from the breakdown of 'whole lotta love', which was indeed from a previous take that didn't fully erase. so they threw some verb on it and the rest is history.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[Musiclab]

While I love tracking thru analog tape, I record with a 2" 24 track machine.
You have a narrow gauge Otari, sorry but I doubt that is really going to impart the magic of analog, what you might notice is everything is either thinner or duller and maybe both depending on your alignment. It's one thing to use 2" but 8 track 1/2 is more like an fx box

[wood&wire]

Originally Posted by Brad McGowan

I can't tell you which one is better because I think that's really an aesthetic choice that has to be made. But I will tell you that you don't need to slide anything around to make this work. There is a better way. If you using a DAW that allows VST plugins and has automatic delay compensation (don't they all at this point?), then you can insert the free Voxengo Latency Delay plugin on your input channels that are connected to the tape deck outputs. By doing a simple loopback test or by sending the same source directly to the DAW and also through the tape deck and then to the DAW you can determine what the delay is due to the record-repro head gap. You type that number into the Voxengo plugin. Now you can record tracks through your tape deck (output set to monitor repro head) simultaneously while recording additional tracks straight to disk. Because of the way the automatic delay compensation deals with the delay reported by the Voxengo plugin, the DAW will essentially pull all your tape tracks back in time for you.

Give it a shot. Let the technology do the work for you. Why more people aren't doing this is beyond me. Manually "dumping" tracks seems like a big hassle and waste of time in my book.

As for the AD and DA conversion....don't work about it. Enjoy the sound of tape and make music.

Brad

Hello!

Been reading this forum for a long while but i registered only recently.

I'm really interested in using my tape recorder in the signal chain while tracking, mostly for drums, electric guitars and vocals. I'd Basically use the tape in the signal chain, after the preamp and the compressor, right before hitting the AD converter.
If i follow your advice in the quoted post, and use delay compensation for that matter, and end up with the mix + let's say the guitars being tracked in the monitors, won't the signal that's recorded to tape be too "delayed" (latency) because of the recording head to allow the guitar player to actually play?
I mean i'm sure there's something i don't get, and i'm trying to find a way to hit the tape first and get the signal right to digital afterwards, instead of using the tape recorder on the same tracks only when mixing.

If anyone has any idea, i'd really appreciate it.

[wood&wire]

Ok, just noticed the link in your signature............

Thanks a lot !

[bassman]

What you all need is CLASP:

Endless Analog

This piece of hardware deals with all the switching between tape and the DAW along with plug-ins that deal with the repro head delay automatically. The signal goes straight to tape and then the repro head gets recorded into PT/Cubase etc. and the delay is compensated for on playback.

CLASP controls the tape machine and everything. Check it out. My buddy Chris invented the thing and he's done a fabulous job of it.

-ashley