Best of both worlds... which comes first - Tape or DAW?

[yeloocproducer]

Question for those of us making rock records with a combination of high-sample rate computer capture (88 and 96) and 2" tape... which do you use first when tracking? Do you capture with the computer, edit, print to multitrack and then mixdown to dig/analog? Or do you track to multitrack 2", transfer, edit, and then mixdown with the computer being the final destination for the mulits?

Going to multitrack first to capture drums with smoothed transients helps to let you know the sound has "arrived" and sounds fat enough, and then you can transfer later to the computer. Do edits, continue overdubbing in the computer, etc. then send tracks out through a console and print the mix to analog. Seems like it was the MO for a lot of folks in the past. But I recently had a conversation with a platinum producer who likes going to PT first and then prints to 2 inch after all edits, comping, and tracking, because the tape's upper harmonics don't get messed with as much in this configuration, esp. if your final destination medium is high end analog 1/2" or DSD, etc. Has digital gotten good enough that this is actually the better way in the long run? I can see his point, although he even admitted that it still takes a certain amount of experienced imagination/ confidence to know that the sound is finished enough to track with all of that digital ummm, clarity. Haven't A/B'd but it would be an interesting one... and could probably affect some of my future game plans. Any takers on this?

Of course, this is assuming we are working with modern projects that need the computer in the first place.

[BB Bill]

I record to PT first, comp/edit, then dump to a Studer A800 III 1" 8 track, and then back to PT for mixdown.

I just make sure it sounds great as it is when recording to PT in the first place, knowing that dumping it to tape will usually give it that extra glue and fatness I love, making it even better.

It's kinda like mixing to 1/2"... you can't hear it until you've actually printed the mix and listen back, but you're really looking forward to hearing the tape play back cos you know that 8 times out of 10 it adds that little touch of magic that makes you feel all good and warm on the inside

[echorec]

Originally Posted by yeloocproducer

... Or do you track to multitrack 2", transfer, edit, and then mixdown with the computer being the final destination for the mulits?

I do like this but I´m still at 44.1

[84K]

Ideal Rock Recording:

Record the rhythm tracks to 2".... Edit what is needed in Protools.... Keep what you can on tape without edits (No Drum Edits... cut till they're right), then sync and record the vocals in Protools. Mix all rhythm tracks from the tape with vocals coming out of protools.... All into an SSL then print to 1/2" tape...

[msrecprod]

Tape not only provides it's type of soft compression, but also gives a 3D image that digital does not. If you record to digital first you can never get back the image that the tape would of had. The digital feed also hits tape in a different way then the sound coming stright from the console would. Now how important is the tapes 3D image? If your talking about modern rock, not as important as one would think. The second you get into high track counts, the image of the basic tracks goes out the window (your building your own image). I'm about to rant so I'll stop.

[yeloocproducer]

Originally Posted by msrecprod

Tape not only provides it's type of soft compression, but also gives a 3D image that digital does not. If you record to digital first you can never get back the image that the tape would of had. The digital feed also hits tape in a different way then the sound coming stright from the console would. Now how important is the tapes 3D image? If your talking about modern rock, not as important as one would think. The second you get into high track counts, the image of the basic tracks goes out the window (your building your own image). I'm about to rant so I'll stop.

Sounds like you probably don't want to use the computer at all, which I completely respect and admire. Most pros would concur that rock sounds better overall if it never hits the computer. But this thread was predicated on the idea that the computer is needed for edits, etc. So please could we get all future posts boiled down to a chicken or egg argument? (which comes first if it's necessry to use a computer?)

[superburtm]

This is an interesting question indeed. I would llove to hear what some of you think that have actually tracked digital and dumped to analog multitrack. Do you gain the tapey quality still. I track in Pro tools due to budget but if I could get everything they way I wanted with the bonus of multiple takes without huge tape costs and do edits in Tools then dump to analog multitrack and still gain quite a bit of texture and smoothed out transients this may be a really efficient way of working.

[msrecprod]

Sorry, I think you took that the wrong way. What I accully ment was that: If your going to use tape, you would receive the best quality by hitting the tape first. Hitting the tape second will for sure give it a kind of tape sound, but would not be the same quality as hitting tape first. I use digital/Pro Tools everyday. And I'm quite happy with it. I used to track to tape for drums/bass/guitar. Pretty much everything except for vocals. And then mix analog to a 1/2" deck. Slowly and slowly I began using less tape and more digital. Yes there is a quality diffrence, but it is made up for by time saved. Using tape adds a lot of time to the recording process. And I'm talking modern rock stuff here(obviously if your tracking live to tape there isn't much time difference between tape and digital). I think that it is close to impossible to do a modern rock/pop/hip hop, whatever it be record, without the use of digital editing. Your on the total right track. The mariage of Tape and Digital is an wonderfull thing either way you have it.

[gear is cool]

I only use pro tools when i run out of tracks on the 2" 24, sometimes I'll fly something into pt's if I need to do a edit, but it's rare...I've been trying to vibe more on the songs than worrying about the drums moving a bit here or there...
plus I really don't dig the "stamp" pro tools puts on the tracks even at 96K
joe
www.orbitaudiorocks.com

[gevermil]

ive messed around a bunch with the tape and digital marraige
Going to tape after protools is only going to give you one aspect of tape quality .
Yeah you can hit the tape hard and get some kind of tape/electronics compression , but there is no magical fidelity that tape will bring out of a digital track . Its the analog source going to the analog medium that gives you the musical feel and analog benifits . I agree that digital is really a time saver and a good ear can do wonders with it .

[superburtm]

So the general opinion is if you track digi don't bother priniting to analog multi trk?

[yeloocproducer]

I think it's more like if you track to digital at all, it's never going to sound as good as pure analog. We all know that to be true for rock... but I'm still wondering what people think is the lesser of two evils...

[Marcus B]

my preferred process these days would have to be:

* track beds to 2"
* dump to PT
* edits/overdubs/vocals in PT
* mix outta PT into board
* print to 1/2", 44.1k PT and 96k masterlink

more often than not thanks to budgets it's more likely

* track beds to 2"
* dump to PT
* edits/overdubs/vocals in PT
* mix ITB
* print to a pair of spare tracks :(

[Jack the Bear]

I'm not a recording engineer and I can barely mix a drink these days but I would have thought that by recording to tape 1st you then save unnecessary coversion processes, rather than by doing to a DAW then tape then back to the DAW.

Cheers,

[Mrs. Fairman]

Originally Posted by yeloocproducer

Question for those of us making rock records with a combination of high-sample rate computer capture (88 and 96) and 2" tape... which do you use first when tracking? Do you capture with the computer, edit, print to multitrack and then mixdown to dig/analog? Or do you track to multitrack 2", transfer, edit, and then mixdown with the computer being the final destination for the mulits?

Going to multitrack first to capture drums with smoothed transients helps to let you know the sound has "arrived" and sounds fat enough, and then you can transfer later to the computer. Do edits, continue overdubbing in the computer, etc. then send tracks out through a console and print the mix to analog. Seems like it was the MO for a lot of folks in the past. But I recently had a conversation with a platinum producer who likes going to PT first and then prints to 2 inch after all edits, comping, and tracking, because the tape's upper harmonics don't get messed with as much in this configuration, esp. if your final destination medium is high end analog 1/2" or DSD, etc. Has digital gotten good enough that this is actually the better way in the long run? I can see his point, although he even admitted that it still takes a certain amount of experienced imagination/ confidence to know that the sound is finished enough to track with all of that digital ummm, clarity. Haven't A/B'd but it would be an interesting one... and could probably affect some of my future game plans. Any takers on this?

Of course, this is assuming we are working with modern projects that need the computer in the first place.

Go please on the following pages:
http://www.truetrackrec.de/Masterband.htm

http://www.truetrackrec.de/soundbeispiel.htm

http://www.musicfiles.homepage.t-onl...ich%20ohne.aif

http://www.musicfiles.homepage.t-onl...ch%2015ips.aif

http://www.musicfiles.homepage.t-onl...ch%2030ips.aif





Here you can hear DAW vs. TAPE

[yeloocproducer]

Uhhh.... OK. I think there's a misunderstanding. This thread is about which do you use first, tape or DAW. Sequentially. In what order. Thanks for the post of the sound files, but we are not debating DAW vs. tape.

[Mrs. Fairman]

Originally Posted by yeloocproducer

Uhhh.... OK. I think there's a misunderstanding. This thread is about which do you use first, tape or DAW. Sequentially. In what order. Thanks for the post of the sound files, but we are not debating DAW vs. tape.

I think there's a misunderstanding, too.

Mine write and read in English is very bad.
I want to help, no problem.

But then the answer:
70% go I personally from Tape, to 30 % only from DAW.

Best greetings Dirk

[NathanEldred]

Originally Posted by yeloocproducer

I think it's more like if you track to digital at all, it's never going to sound as good as pure analog. We all know that to be true for rock... but I'm still wondering what people think is the lesser of two evils...

Best: stay on the reel if possible
2nd best: tranfer reel through really great converters (i.e. Radar or Lavry)
3rd best (from a bit of a leap from #2): All digital

Great tracks can still be done on digital with the right music, engineer, and gear of course. Analog just makes things easier.

[Ricey]

i've had projects recorded to PT and i pass them to tape before mixing them. maybe not as awesome as the other way around, but one advantage: you know exactly how loud the loudest part of each track will be and you can set record levels on tape accordingly, getting the most from your tape without having to worry about the drummer 'playing louder than he did during setup'(that can happen sometimes, i mean always....).

[Drumsound]

I believe you'll get more out of the tape if it’s the first recording medium in the chain. I personally like to stay there. On one instance recently I needed to do an edit, so I put a enough of the tracks from the 2" into RADAR to copy/paste the second verse into the first on a guitar part because there was a slight drop-out. I ended up doing the edit and flying the fixed track back to the tape and continuing on.

[Jay Kahrs]

I do whatever's best for that particular project.

Really.

If we have the budget to keep it on tape and the band can actually play, I'll keep it all on tape. And then, I'll even mix off tape. The only time I'd touch a DAW is to fly vocals or solos around, maybe do some creative science project or whatever...I'll even cut tape and edit with a razor!

But more realistically I'll cut to tape and once we have keeper takes, I'll transfer into the DAW and then it stays there for the duration. I mix on a console and use the DAW as a giant tape machine and submixer for backing vocals and other stuff that hits the analog desk as stems.

If, in the worst case scenario...the band just sucks and needs to be Tooled around, I'd skip tape and record right to the DAW. Or, if the budget is super tight and we can't afford to go to a studio and use tape, it's cool...I'll cut right to the DAW and leave it there. I can get enough juice from the back end in mixing that I'm generally ok with it. For as much as I like tape, I've never taken a project from digital, to analog and then back...it's just not worth the effort.

Though...I did a record last year where we cut basics to digital and then brought it back to my (old) shop and dumped it onto 2" at 15ips. Then we did overdubs and mixed off the 2" over to 1/4" at 15ips and the record was mastered from the 1/4". That was for a southern/classic rock band, worked out pretty well. We tracked to digital upfront because they wanted to do lots and lots of takes before picking one to do overdubs on. Rather then using 10 reels of tape, we ended up getting the whole record onto two reels!

The mix goes to tape if we want that sound...and for rock/pop stuff we usually want the gentle rounding and mellowing that tape provides because it is such a sweet thing. I'll do a capture off the tape at 24/48 or 24/96 for mastering and maybe send the reels along so the ME can compare and pick the best sounding example. I’ll also print a straight mix off the desk right to the AD and we’ll compare that to the tape capture before mastering.

But yeah, I feel that once the music kisses tape it’s about as good as it’s ever going to get. Besides, the top starts to settle in after 24 hours so I like to get it as fresh to the print as possible, before it has a chance to get beaten over the heads and the high end starts to disappear. The DAW isn’t as good, but it’s good enough and I like some of the flexibility it offers over staying on tape for the duration.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter that much. As long as the tools don't impede the workflow and my clients are happy, I'm happy.

[Joel Hamilton]

Track to 2", xfer to PTHD at 88.2, mix on a console to two track analog.

I love the combination of the two formats a lot.

[Jonk]

Has anyone mentioned that there's an extra in and out conversion if you're going to the computer first?

That pretty much makes the decision for me.

[Anonyme]

Originally Posted by Ricey

i've had projects recorded to PT and i pass them to tape before mixing them. maybe not as awesome as the other way around, but one advantage: you know exactly how loud the loudest part of each track will be and you can set record levels on tape accordingly, getting the most from your tape without having to worry about the drummer 'playing louder than he did during setup'(that can happen sometimes, i mean always....).

couldn't you rout the signal to both pt and tape while recording? that way you would have tape if everythings ok and still have pt as backup...

Well as you guys know, I dont do any rock stuff, but I do have a ?

So what happens if your sources are digital (MPC synth etc...) Which still benefits from going to Tape IMO

In this case does it matter if you go to digital first?

[Musiclab]

99.9% of the time I start on 2". If I need to edit I dump into the computer. When I'm done I blow it back onto tape, I don't worry about the generation loss and I prefer
the reliabilty of storage. When I fill up the tape I continue with the daw. I lust fifnished a 48+ track production like this a few weeks ago. I'm thinking of posting it in the mp3 section but I hate mp3.

[Apemandan]

I prefer to track a live band to 2" tape and concentrate on capturing the performance. When dubbing i will then sync protools, track and edit vocals, maybe some guitars and whatever else at 96kHz. Then i mix down through the analogue board. Sometimes i use more protools, sometimes all tape. Depends on the mix and the artist's preference.

Dan.

[D.T. Jambor]

Here a further example.

DAW vs. Tape.

With a special "extended" 2 - Track Tape.
Consider the frequency response DAW and Tape.

All files are in 24 bits - 96 kHz - No EQ, no Compressor... Converter Lavry

http://www.musicfiles.homepage.t-onl...iginalFile.wav

http://www.musicfiles.homepage.t-onl...fTape15ips.wav

[Hexfix93]

so i do synth music.... there is this local studio s few blocks away from my house http://www.coloradosound.com/ ... welp i was tracking into cubase via a tg2.... using plugs.. yuck i dont think my good dacs and a pre sounds all that great, i used to just run all my synths live being sequenced real time, and run em through a cheap mackie and record and sum like that, and in some ways i liked that sound more...

so. now if i go back to sequencing things live, should i go to this studio use their analog baord, do everything live, and go to tape, or jsut mix it right then and there and dump it to the computer in 2 tracks and master it?

i mean i could do the vocal production here, i got eventide and ksp8, decent pres and mics, decend rooms.. etc.. i could bring a mac with logic some dacs, and all my synths, run em live through a good analog baord and just record it like that. or would i miss the tape sound? is tape that great for electronic and dance music?

i dunno... i'm sick of playing the gear slut game. i think i want to just goto a studio if i can afford it...

and btw are the Euphonix CS2000P consoles any good?