Who still uses tape in the recording process, how, when and why?

[JCRockit]

Please chime in on whether you use tape in your recording process, or if you do not and why. Also please share your technique for how when and where you insert the analog tape process and include the gear you use. Also if you do not use tape how do you compensate with digital techniques.

[Brad McGowan]

I'm primarily tracking to a hotrodded MCI JH-110A 1" 8-track and then mixing to Studer A807 1/4" these days. I love the whole process. I'm using GP9 at +3/250 at 15ips on the 8-track and then ATR tape at 0/355 at 15ips on the Studer. I just started modifying the Studer electronics so that deck should be sounding even more awesome very shortly.

When I use a DAW, I'm using the techniques outlined in the two part video on my youtube site. Check out the link in my signature for details. Basically I'm always recording through the tape deck even when tracking to a DAW.

Here's a good thread that answers the question "is it better to track to tape and then dump to the DAW or track to the DAW and bounce to tape?". I provided many sound clips in the thread. The conclusion was that it makes no repeatably perceptible difference which you do first. The most important thing is that tape just gets in the signal chain at some point.

record straight to tape vs protools, then tape

Brad

[JCRockit]

Originally Posted by Brad McGowan

I'm primarily tracking to a hotrodded MCI JH-110A 1" 8-track and then mixing to Studer A807 1/4" these days. I love the whole process. I'm using GP9 at +3/250 at 15ips on the 8-track and then ATR tape at 0/355 at 15ips on the Studer. I just started modifying the Studer electronics so that deck should be sounding even more awesome very shortly.

When I use a DAW, I'm using the techniques outlined in the two part video on my youtube site. Check out the link in my signature for details. Basically I'm always recording through the tape deck even when tracking to a DAW.

Here's a good thread that answers the question "is it better to track to tape and then dump to the DAW or track to the DAW and bounce to tape?". I provided many sound clips in the thread. The conclusion was that it makes no repeatably perceptible difference which you do first. The most important thing is that tape just gets in the signal chain at some point.

record straight to tape vs protools, then tape

Brad

Awesome ! ty gonna check it out... Ive seen tape decks going for crazy cheap on ebay like Otaris and Studers ect... It just seems to me that even mixing OTB the missing "glue" is TAPE in the chain someplace...

[LeMauce]

If I have the possibility. I track in protools HD. Edit what is needed. If the artist/producer is fine with the final edit, dump to analog tape 24tracks max (making stems in PTHD). Mix from Tape back to a Icon or Analog desk.
But I always prefer to track direct to ptHD for the editing. Can't life without it. Of course remember to not to track to hot and keep in mind to standards (-18dBFS rms / -6dbFS peak here for use in France for the most music).

[NathanEldred]

What: 2 inch 16 track Ampex MM1200, 1/4 inch Ampex ATR 800

When: Whenever the band can do things in just a couple takes (together as a group or overdubs). If they need punch in after punch in because they can't play all the way through without a ton of mistakes then it goes to digital.

Why: Because it sounds better than even the best digital. But we do transfer the multitrack into the computer for editing and some processing. I find drums and guitars to benefit the most from tape. Usually vocals, sometimes bass guitar, and a few overdubs go to digital. Everything is mixed on an analog console and mixed to tape.

[abtech]

What:

24 Track Studer A-80, Studer 1/2 stereo A-80VU; Studer 1/4" stereo A-80RC

When:

Whenever recording is required . . .

Why:

Because I can . . .

[casrec]

I wish I could record to tape. A studer A827 or the monstrous A-80 MKIV would be absolutely amazing. But I would settle with a giant smile on an Otari MX-80 or MTR90 MK II or III

[JCRockit]

Originally Posted by NathanEldred

What: 2 inch 16 track Ampex MM1200, 1/4 inch Ampex ATR 800

When: Whenever the band can do things in just a couple takes (together as a group or overdubs). If they need punch in after punch in because they can't play all the way through without a ton of mistakes then it goes to digital.

Why: Because it sounds better than even the best digital. But we do transfer the multitrack into the computer for editing and some processing. I find drums and guitars to benefit the most from tape. Usually vocals, sometimes bass guitar, and a few overdubs go to digital. Everything is mixed on an analog console and mixed to tape.

How do you synch analog machine to DAW ? Do you print time code ? Also what do you think of tracking to DAW and mixing down to analog 2 track, would that suffice to provide tape warmth ?

[soundbarnfool]

All tape, all analog.

Inglewood SoundBarn

[NathanEldred]

Originally Posted by JCRockit

How do you synch analog machine to DAW ? Do you print time code ?

We don't sync anything. The group records the basics to tape and we do one pass into the DAW. Then the remainder goes to digital. Although you could just stripe a smpte track with a guard track on the tape and sync to the DAW with the tape as slave that way, but no one wants to bother with that that I've come across.

[JCRockit]

Originally Posted by NathanEldred

We don't sync anything. The group records the basics to tape and we do one pass into the DAW. Then the remainder goes to digital. Although you could just stripe a smpte track with a guard track on the tape and sync to the DAW with the tape as slave that way, but no one wants to bother with that that I've come across.

Wow ok so after you fly the tracks into PT you do punch ins and some overdubs in the DAW then mix to 2 track ?

[RKrizman]

On my last set of sessions I used a modified version of what Brad McGowan has suggested--basically tracking to tape and at the same time running off the repro head into Protools. This involved splitting all the preamps into a sub mixer to feed a realtime monitor signal to the players, because the signal off the repro head was delayed. Then, after the takes, I shift the tracks forward by the amount I've calculated to put them in synch with everything else.

However, in retrospect I found this to just be too complex. As a composer-producer-engineer with no assistant I found myself sucked too far into the technical aspects of the session at the expense of a more artistic involvement in the process. It was the straw that broke the multitasking camel's back, and in retrospect I felt the results, when looking at the big picture, were either a net loss or a wash--in either case not justifying the extra process.

I like the sound of tape, but I also like the sound of digital and in the past have been very happy with sounds (even drums) that I get going straight to DAW.

But hey, it's good to be flexible and try different methodologies to see what suits your own purpose the best.

-R

[vernier]

Other gear from that era is needed as well to avoid the modern sound oddity.

[NathanEldred]

Originally Posted by JCRockit

Wow ok so after you fly the tracks into PT you do punch ins and some overdubs in the DAW then mix to 2 track ?

Exactly. It's been labelled a 'hybrid' system, not completely analog/OTB or digital/ITB, but the best of both (at least IMO). 10-15 years ago, everyone seemed to have worked on either what's now called a hybrid system (ADATs or DA88s mixed on a console), or completely analog (tape on a console). Mix was either to tape or DAT.

PS I don't use Pro Tools, I use Samplitude.

[bongo]

I've always hated tape. When I first started 30 years ago on a 80-8 Tascam recorder it had dbx noise reduction, I hated that. Then I moved to an Otari MX-5050 8 track where I battled tape hiss. Then I moved to a 16 track MCI where tape hiss was less but still drove me crazy. The point is, I never saw the advantage of it, only the limitations. It never played back exactly what I recorded and yes I know how to align a tape machine.

I was more happy in digital, even in the very beginning when it was a 16 bit Sony PCM system. It still sounded more like what I put into it. If I want to change the sound, I have plenty of things to do that before the recording medium.

Just an opinion from a wacko from Pennsylvania that has had a working commercial studio for 30 years!

[JQ127]

JH-24 2" 16 track. Mix on the console to 1/2" MCI JH110. I'm just opening my new studio and have only done 3 sessions there so far. Sounds pretty damn good so far on the 2" 16 track machine. I think the work flow is so much better with analog. With digital everyone is always staring at the computer screen like 8 year old kids. Kind of kills the vibe.

With analog everyone seems to be more 'present. Listening to what's going on. Not watching the engineer trying (for 20 minutes) to figure out some shortcut in pro tools that allows an easier way to edit or some such foolishness that the great rock bands of yesteryear never knew about or needed. Analog makes everyone step up their ballgame I think.

[Musiclab]

I use a 2" 24 track on all of my own productions and on any where the client will spring for the tape, why? It sounds better and it's a better form of storage, I do sync my 2" with my daw for more tracks and for edits

[John Willett]

The only tape I use is gaffer tape - I have not used rusty analogue plastic since 1982.

[CapstanGreg]

I usually put everything down +6 @ 30ips on either a Studer A820 or Otari MTR-90II. If the drummer and bass player have a good thing going on, I'll do all bass overdubs/punch-ins right to tape. If we're happy with the guitar tones/takes, and if time permits, we'll do the same for basic guitar tracks.

Then I dump into Pro Tools for additional overdubs and vocals. The editing and comping flexibility in Pro Tools is great for vocals. I usually track via Apogee or Lynx converters.

For mixing, I usually stem out to analog processing then reprint back in the digital domain.

[Marshman]

Track to a MCI JH16 2" 16 track through an MCI 400 series console, the dump the works into digital, same as Nathan. Works very well.

Using GP9 and 499 @ 30ips.

mm

[Brad McGowan]

And conversely I'm finding that tracking and mixing to tape is easier than using the darn DAW. Go figure. All I have to do is turn on the mixer and the the tape deck and I'm ready to.

If I had to choose between a computer crash or a tape deck breakdown, I'd probably flip a coin. Both suck.

Brad

[Beech]

What:

24 Track Studer A827, Studer 1/2" A80 RC

When:

Whenever it is requested by the artists . . .

Why:

Because it forces us to get off our asses and go for it! That's part of the sound IMO.

Sometimes we will go to 1/2" at the mastering stage.

[JCRockit]

Originally Posted by CapstanGreg

I usually put everything down +6 @ 30ips on either a Studer A820 or Otari MTR-90II. If the drummer and bass player have a good thing going on, I'll do all bass overdubs/punch-ins right to tape. If we're happy with the guitar tones/takes, and if time permits, we'll do the same for basic guitar tracks.

Then I dump into Pro Tools for additional overdubs and vocals. The editing and comping flexibility in Pro Tools is great for vocals. I usually track via Apogee or Lynx converters.

For mixing, I usually stem out to analog processing then reprint back in the digital domain.

Do you have to get around a different tonality between the tracks layed down to tape and the ones overdubbed in the DAW?

[JCRockit]

Does anyone find when tracking to DAW totally that mixing to 2 track tape significantly warms and sweetens things?

[lerone]

If I'm recording Rock drums, I'll almost allways use tape 2" /15 ips. Its just sounds alot denser when its slower. Bass normally gets tracked through the aurora, usually with a r121 for a bit of fatness. Guitars are a toss up, bout 50/50 and vox is nearly always through the lynx as its just tighter, but still warm and smooth. Obviously its got a much better noise floor, same goes with acoustic guitar, lynx most of the time.thumbsup

[Brad McGowan]

Originally Posted by JCRockit

Do you have to get around a different tonality between the tracks layed down to tape and the ones overdubbed in the DAW?

Do you have to get around different tonality when you use different preamps or different mics?

I'm surprised so many of you guys are choosing to track vocals straight to the DAW. I find I can use the tape as another stage of compression and get a freebie de-esser out of it as well. I can understand the need to edit and comp the vocals, hence the techniques I've developed for tracking through the tape deck into the DAW in real time.

Brad

[NathanEldred]

Originally Posted by Brad McGowan

I'm surprised so many of you guys are choosing to track vocals straight to the DAW.

Yes, tape is cool for vocals. But people want too many alternate tracks and layers to be compiled and edited. Even for a 'simple' typical rock project, it will be 3 main alternate takes with 2-4 alternate doubles, so up to 7 tracks at least around here (only 1 main and two 'doubles' will get used). Even if I had a 2 inch 24 track (I'm using 16 2 inch), that's just too many to spare.

To me the biggest benefit of tape are its spacial aspects. To my ears it is very 3-D from front to back, far more than digital. This goes above and beyond coloration and compression characteristics, which are secondary as to why I appreciate it. With vocals, room tone isn't very beneficial IME so the differences aren't that big of a deal, especially when using a colored signal path.

Originally Posted by JCRockit

Does anyone find when tracking to DAW totally that mixing to 2 track tape significantly warms and sweetens things?

Yes, it makes a difference. I did that for about 4 years before also having the multitrack. But it's no comparison to having the multi and the stereo together, at least to my ears.

It's funny, because I think people who haven't used tape think of things being really warm (i.e. either dark or like a heavy effect) and goo-ey with it. Even on my 16 2" Ampex MM1200 which is viewed as one of the biggest tone monsters around, it doesn't do that nearly as much as people imagine. In particular if you run it within normal levels. Whenever I do a comparison, for example for the basic rhythm tracks straight to digital, and then to the 2", the band always calls the tape "real" and the digital "smaller than real". No one ever mentions the words "warm" or "compressed".

[lerone]

Originally Posted by Brad McGowan

Do you have to get around different tonality when you use different preamps or different mics?

I'm surprised so many of you guys are choosing to track vocals straight to the DAW. I find I can use the tape as another stage of compression and get a freebie de-esser out of it as well. I can understand the need to edit and comp the vocals, hence the techniques I've developed for tracking through the tape deck into the DAW in real time.

Brad

I understand what your saying, but more often than not, I've got valves & transformers in the signal path giving alot of colour already, tape would be too much for my tastes. If a vocalist is too sibillant, I like to use a pencil as my de-esser Quite often I use a ribbon if I need a chunkier, more tapey vocal sound. Tape sounds great, but I prefer a hybrid approach to what I record to.

[RKrizman]

Originally Posted by Brad McGowan

I'm surprised so many of you guys are choosing to track vocals straight to the DAW.

Lawson 47 > 1073>Cranesong STC-8> HD 192. Heaven.

-R

[CapstanGreg]

Originally Posted by JCRockit

Do you have to get around a different tonality between the tracks layed down to tape and the ones overdubbed in the DAW?

No not really. I guess one could argue the two don't have the same sonic imprint, but as I'm picking mic/preamp/processing I'm already making decisions to get the vocal to sit sonically where I want. So any sonic difference it ultimately moot... at least in my experience.