Just 8 Tracks, 1", tape. Are you brave enough? (DAPTONE)

[vernier]

Originally Posted by gollumsluvslave

I suppose that's the whole point of the philisophy - make decisions early - including a full submix of the drums. My question above should have been:-


"Is it really possible to do heavy, modern rock like the albums above with only 8 tracks?"


Still i'd love to hear something recorded on only 8 tracks that sounded like my above references - does anyone on GS think they could pull that off?

I'm guessing if the artists involved nailed the takes it would be possible - which may be the whole issue.

Worth a try, even just as an attempt to push limitations...

The records you mentioned have nothing to do with tracks ..its the drum sound, room sound, and the distorted guitars. All conventional stuff and no challenge for eight track.

[3rd world order]

Originally Posted by vernier

The records you mentioned have nothing to do with tracks ..its the drum sound, room sound, and the distorted guitars. All conventional stuff and no challenge for eight track.

you cant make the layers with only 8 tracks, at least in one pass...

a big part of heavy music is using gates/automation/etc to push/pull sounds forward and back.... kick, snare, OHs, hat, room, toms have to be separate to make this happen.

the only way i could think to do it is track the drums to 8 track, do offline processing to clean it up, bounce to free up tracks, then lay down the rest... GTRs, vox, bass, etc. the drums take craftsmanship because the layers are an essential part of the sound. you have to transfer SSL tricks to 8 track tape

so, yes you can do it, but you need to bounce and really be sure of what you're doing... measure twice, cut once... i wouldnt track a whole band (drums, bass, gtrs, etc) with 8 tracks all at once... you'd need to think out a scheme for bouncing layers

[PlayRadioPlay]

I bought a Daptone record by The Might Imperials recently. Great sounding record!

[gollumsluvslave]

you cant make the layers with only 8 tracks, at least in one pass...

a big part of heavy music is using gates/automation/etc to push/pull sounds forward and back.... kick, snare, OHs, hat, room, toms have to be separate to make this happen.

the only way i could think to do it is track the drums to 8 track, do offline processing to clean it up, bounce to free up tracks, then lay down the rest... GTRs, vox, bass, etc. the drums take craftsmanship because the layers are an essential part of the sound. you have to transfer SSL tricks to 8 track tape

so, yes you can do it, but you need to bounce and really be sure of what you're doing... measure twice, cut once... i wouldnt track a whole band (drums, bass, gtrs, etc) with 8 tracks all at once... you'd need to think out a scheme for bouncing layers

This is the kind of thing I was wondering - if bouncing etc is necessary, then surely more tracks obviates the need for going through the whole bouncing process etc.

I'm sure Terry Date and Deftones would have been able to get close to White Pony on 8 tracks, but what compromises would have been made?

BTW, I wouldn't class Elephant by White Stripes as a 'modern' rock album sound-wise by any stretch - it's unashamedly 70's sounding to me - and it works in that context.

I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade regarding 8 tracks - just interested in different views.

[MC Blind]

Originally Posted by gollumsluvslave

BTW, I wouldn't class Elephant by White Stripes as a 'modern' rock album sound-wise by any stretch - it's unashamedly 70's sounding to me.

BTW I totally disagree with you. Elephant is way too bright and loud to be considered 70s sounding.

Just because something is tracked to tape and nice high end hardware is used doesn't mean that they can't ruin it mastering.

[3rd world order]

Originally Posted by gollumsluvslave

This is the kind of thing I was wondering - if bouncing etc is necessary, then surely more tracks obviates the need for going through the whole bouncing process etc.

I'm sure Terry Date and Deftones would have been able to get close to White Pony on 8 tracks, but what compromises would have been made?

i dont know if viewing this as a compromise is correct.... there's a 4 track multi of some old Beatles songs floating around the internet which is a wonderful education as far as laying out tracks, bouncing, punching in sounds, etc.... the hotel california multi is quite an education too... as far as using a tape machine and studio for arrangement purposes.

bouncing is sort of like "flatten" in Photoshop... use it to make layers. yes, you do lose a lil bit of immediacy when you bounce, but this is often a GOOD thing... it helps with depth and pushing sounds back... its a way to combine a bunch of sounds into one layer... and then if you EQ that layer coming back off tape it holds together in a different way than it would if the sounds were still on separate tracks....

there are real benefits to working this way... less can be more

one example.. there's no undo with a bounce (unless you keep safety reels and/or have multiple machines) but there's often no NEED to undo a bounce... there's nothing wrong with it if you do it correctly... you're going to have to make the decision at some point in production anyhow... so the earlier this is done the more mental space you'll have to make other decisions down the road.

its a way to cut down the number of variables during mix. the decision is already made.. cant do anything now.. so it either works or doesnt. clarity.

humans can only really distinguish about 4 sounds at any given time... more than 4 is exceptional... so 100 tracks doesnt really buy you that much extra... it doesnt have to be a limitation if you know what you want and can get it...

i guess what i'm saying is that most ppl use more tracks than they need because the tendency is always to put off decisions until mix time...... well, details get forgotten this way... better to make decisions early, i think... because you CAN reach a point of certainty about what you're doing.... it takes a long time (for me about 15 years) to reach this point, but i'm glad i did... its made me a lot better engineer.

i think my dream format is 16 on 2" @ 15ips. it's all you really need and sounds HUGE. if you cant make the song grab someone with 16 tracks you have to keep practicing... because all the important stuff should be able to fit.. you can do it with 4, but you're gonna have wimpy drums... 8 is tight, but doable... 16 gives some margin for error.. 24 is HALF the tape width (of 16) and wimpy again.. so i think 16 on 2" is the best compromise between tape width and track count... it's eight 1/4" machines in parallel, essentially

the other thing you can do with a tape machine and bounced layers is tweak the bias/EQ so the top end saturates differently on different groups... hint hint... i wouldnt setup all the tracks to be the same, at least not during mix.... you'll find different settings work for different instruments... if the bias is a lil bit off, you can "shrink" the track to your advantage... less of one means more space for something else etc.... mixing is all about contrast and glue... or Sum and Difference.... if everything sounds the same there is no contrast.... let me just say that you can use tape like a bokeh effect in photography.

am i giving too much away?

[Space Station]

Originally Posted by 3rd world order

24 is HALF the tape width (of 16) and wimpy again..

24 track doesn't halve the tape width over 16. It has 2/3rds the width.

Countless amazing records have been recorded on 24 tr 2 inch..I wouldn't call the sound wimpy by any stretch.

[3rd world order]

Originally Posted by Space Station

24 track doesn't halve the tape width over 16. It has 2/3rds the width.

Countless amazing records have been recorded on 24 tr 2 inch..I wouldn't call the sound wimpy by any stretch.

16 track = 15 gaps

24 track = 23 gaps

16/2 works out to twice the tape width because of the gaps

[Space Station]

Originally Posted by 3rd world order

16 track = 15 gaps

24 track = 23 gaps

16/2 works out to twice the tape width because of the gaps

Sure, it still doesn't work out exactly half though, I have the measurements from Studer somewhere..I'll dig them out.

Obviously measurements vary from make to make and model to model too.

[3rd world order]

Originally Posted by Space Station

Sure, it still doesn't work out exactly half though, I have the measurements from Studer somewhere..I'll dig them out.

Obviously measurements vary from make to make and model to model too.

at any rate, bigger = better

i looked it up.. it's about .61 so a lil closer to 2/3 than 1/2.
acceptable amount of slop for what i was trying to explain before morning coffee

the more i think about this, the funnier it is... guys here obsess about the "last 5%" like crazy.. 16on2 buys you 39% more tape width. think about that for awhile.

tough crowd! hahaha

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by 3rd world order

...16/2 works out to twice the tape width because of the gaps

A 16 track live bounce to double something was no noisier than using two tracks of 2" 24.

I was pretty mad the first time I used 2" 16 after 25 years of dealing with 24 track.

[DJamesGoody]

Talking about the deftones et al, with regard to recording 8 track, it is without question, a compromise. A record like White Pony relies on isolation, in particular kick, snare, etc..... fine one can bounce, but you will need to leave the kick and snare on separate tracks, because of the processing necessary to create power with this type of record.

Mind you, I don't care to defend a record like White Pony, because I don't think it's particularly good - but there is no question that heavy records require certain flexibilities specifically within the drum sound. You sometimes need your ambient mics to be separate so you can alter dynamics within song sections, etc..

Heavy records along these lines are generally also played by drummers with little sense of dynamic. In other words, these guys are smashers. Therefore, if you decide not to do the typical close mic setup on the drums, you're in for a pretty ghastly time with controlling cymbals, etc......

Personally, I don't think it has anything to do with being "brave" or whatever....... it has to do with doing the right thing for the task at hand. I don't give a shit if I use 120 tracks - if it's right, so be it. I can just as easily go into another record intending to use nothing more than 8 tracks if it's good for the material.

The Daptones records are essentially carbon copies of things done 35 years ago. To me, that's far from brave. It may be good, but it is certainly not innovative. I get this feeling that a lot of the discussion about using 8 tracks, or "going old school" is about people trying to be hip, or cool, or have some cache.

[Dave_Amels]

Originally Posted by DJGoody

The Daptones records are essentially carbon copies of things done 35 years ago. To me, that's far from brave. It may be good, but it is certainly not innovative. I get this feeling that a lot of the discussion about using 8 tracks, or "going old school" is about people trying to be hip, or cool, or have some cache.

It wasn't easy 35 years and it's next to impossible to do now which is why Daptone deserves so much credit. There's an incredible amount of skill and knowledge needed to be able to pull this off... That's why there's been so much curiosity by people who are interested in recording.

[3rd world order]

you could also use the tape machine to track on and chop/mix/automate in the DAW... go hybrid. or track digital, sanitize, and bang stems down to tape...

million ways to skin a cat....

[soundbarnfool]

Originally Posted by DJGoody

I get this feeling that a lot of the discussion about using 8 tracks, or "going old school" is about people trying to be hip, or cool, or have some cache.

Well if you are correct at least they are trying to be hip by talking about using less rather than more. That's a refreshing mindset if you ask me. I walk the 8 track 1" walk and have been doing so for many years. It's PLENTY of tracks for what I do. And the sound is hard to beat. As has been said.


Inglewood SoundBarn

[DJamesGoody]

Originally Posted by soundbarnfool

Well if you are correct at least they are trying to be hip by talking about using less rather than more. That's a refreshing mindset if you ask me. I walk the 8 track 1" walk and have been doing so for many years. It's PLENTY of tracks for what I do. And the sound is hard to beat. As has been said.


Inglewood SoundBarn

That's all good. Believe me, I'm into it, and I'm commensurate with that mindset.

It's just that several times in this thread, and others, it becomes a measuring stick of sorts... kind of like penis wars. That's what I personally find offensive - and it's no different than those who say "well, I never use less than 200 tracks".

When it becomes dogma, it gets really tiresome.

[Space Station]

Originally Posted by DJGoody

I get this feeling that a lot of the discussion about using 8 tracks, or "going old school" is about people trying to be hip, or cool, or have some cache.

I don't think it is, because as audio engineers/producers or whatever, we are always striving for the best sonics and working methods to capture the song...I don't think anyone here would sacrifice that goal for the sake of appearing 'cool'. You wouldn't last long professionally.

[DJamesGoody]

Originally Posted by Dave_Amels

It wasn't easy 35 years and it's next to impossible to do now which is why Daptone deserves so much credit. There's an incredible amount of skill and knowledge needed to be able to pull this off... That's why there's been so much curiosity by people who are interested in recording.

There is no question that skill is required. No question at all - skill on all sides. So yes, in the context of the modern median skill level of music professionals, the Daptone crew deserves credit for having that skill, and maintaining the skill.

All I'm saying is that calling it brave or innovative is to ignore that it's been done before, and it ignores the sad truth that professionals are to a large degree, self appointed in modern times, with little proper training or knowledge.

My opinion is directed equally, if not more, at the musical content. These guys are good at what they do, but it is most certainly not new or fresh. Much of what they do is extremely derivative, and therefore, it has a roadmap.

35 years ago, the people doing this didn't have a roadmap. They were figuring it out as they went along - musically and technically. They didn't have 35 years of history to reference and derive from. So, in that sense I completely disagree that it's more difficult now.

[DJamesGoody]

Originally Posted by Space Station

I don't think it is, because as audio engineers/producers or whatever, we are always striving for the best sonics and working methods to capture the song...I don't think anyone here would sacrifice that goal for the sake of appearing 'cool'. You wouldn't last long professionally.

I couldn't disagree more. Plenty of dilettantes last far too long, as this industry- the mainstream at least, is all about cool cache.

Maybe I'm too cynical. It's an opinion, but far too often I feel like a lot of people do stuff to be cool, to present a pretense or an image.

[Dave_Amels]

Originally Posted by DJGoody

There is no question that skill is required. No question at all - skill on all sides. So yes, in the context of the modern median skill level of music professionals, the Daptone crew deserves credit for having that skill, and maintaining the skill.

I don't think this thread is about innovation... It's about just trying to get back to the skill level engineers had 35 years ago.

[Dave_Amels]

Originally Posted by DJGoody

I couldn't disagree more. Plenty of dilettantes last far too long, as this industry- the mainstream at least, is all about cool cache.

That's because it ceased to be a real industry decades ago.

[DJamesGoody]

Originally Posted by Dave_Amels

I don't think this thread is about innovation... It's about just trying to get back to the skill level engineers had 35 years ago.

Fair enough. I definitely got too dark on it.

[DJamesGoody]

Originally Posted by Dave_Amels

That's because it ceased to be a real industry decades ago.

That is definitely true.

[3rd world order]

Originally Posted by DJGoody

I couldn't disagree more. Plenty of dilettantes last far too long, as this industry- the mainstream at least, is all about cool cache.

Maybe I'm too cynical. It's an opinion, but far too often I feel like a lot of people do stuff to be cool, to present a pretense or an image.

i vote for too cynical. art doesnt have to answer to anyone. if you dont like someone's art there's plenty more to go around.

i'll take "dilettantes" over the corporate hive-world every time.

[thefoxbox]

As stated before, I think there is an element of creative problem solving that can be appealing to a recording engineer in this sort of situation. By limiting the number of tools you have at your disposal, you are going to be forced to rely more on your own creativity. I am not implying that DAW users are any less creative, only that we have different approaches to our own artistic fulfillment.

[Dave_Amels]

Originally Posted by thefoxbox

As stated before, I think there is an element of creative problem solving that can be appealing to a recording engineer in this sort of situation. By limiting the number of tools you have at your disposal, you are going to be forced to rely more on your own creativity. I am not implying that DAW users are any less creative, only that we have different approaches to our own artistic fulfillment.

Actually... no so much on creativity as on your ear and mic placement. Working this way also forces you to understand what you're doing and some of the theory behind it. If not, you'd be hopelessly frustrated. I did a session with a 22 year old engineer in NC a year and a half ago. He wouldn't move a mic if his life depended on it. He'd just reach for the EQ. I'd like to see him work on a desk without EQs like in the old days.

He also erased the end of a song by blindly using the tape counter (which of course slips). He then panicked and wanted to dump the entire song to pro tools. I told him to dump the part of the vamp ending he didn't erase, loop it with as big a loop as he could, then dump it back to the tape and do a razor blade edit. He looked at me in horror saying he'd never edited 2" tape before. I said, "but you edit 1/2" tape all the time." He said, "yeah but I haven't ever done 2" and I'm afraid of messing it up. But you've just messed up the song by erasing the ending. Get me a de-magged razor blade and let's do it." After much rummaging they weren't able to find the demag so I had them find me a pair of needle nose pliers and I heated the razor blade on the gas stove until it was red hot. Sure it took the temper off the blade but I was hoping we'd only need to use it once. He did the dump back to a blank piece of tape, I marked the sections. By this time both the engineer and assistant were nervously peering into the machine room, holding on to the sliding door frame while standing in the control room with the look of terror on their faces. I said, "I haven't done this in a while, I'll probably not get it right the first time. You can always redo it." I did the splice, reloaded the machine, they hit rewind and play... and it was perfect. Their jaws hit the floor and I had a hard time not losing it myself as I was pretty sure I hadn't gotten it right.

That's the difference between sitting at your DAW and working at a place like Daptone.

[jindrich]

To those saying that 8 tracks are not enough, and that defending it it's just a pretentious pose to be chic or whatever, I'd like them to listen to this piece:



YouTube - Beethoven Septet in E Flat - Tempo di Menuetto


It's the Menuettto from the very famous Beethoven's Septet, Op.20.
Just seven intruments and no artificial tricks. Listen at ALL what you can do with only 7 sources, if only you care enough for EACH note.

Now take this same carefulness and attention to detail into modern music and multitracking, with an 8-track tape machine, a small mixer, some selected eqs and comps and some reverbs and delays.

You can do ANYTHING with that much.

If only you do care and pay attention.

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by Dave_Amels

Actually... no so much on creativity as on your ear and mic placement. Working this way also forces you to understand what you're doing and some of the theory behind it. If not, you'd be hopelessly frustrated. I did a session with a 22 year old engineer in NC a year and a half ago. He wouldn't move a mic if his life depended on it. He'd just reach for the EQ. I'd like to see him work on a desk without EQs like in the old days.

He also erased the end of a song by blindly using the tape counter (which of course slips). He then panicked and wanted to dump the entire song to pro tools. I told him to dump the part of the vamp ending he didn't erase, loop it with as big a loop as he could, then dump it back to the tape and do a razor blade edit. He looked at me in horror saying he'd never edited 2" tape before. I said, "but you edit 1/2" tape all the time." He said, "yeah but I haven't ever done 2" and I'm afraid of messing it up. But you've just messed up the song by erasing the ending. Get me a de-magged razor blade and let's do it." After much rummaging they weren't able to find the demag so I had them find me a pair of needle nose pliers and I heated the razor blade on the gas stove until it was red hot. Sure it took the temper off the blade but I was hoping we'd only need to use it once. He did the dump back to a blank piece of tape, I marked the sections. By this time both the engineer and assistant were nervously peering into the machine room, holding on to the sliding door frame while standing in the control room with the look of terror on their faces. I said, "I haven't done this in a while, I'll probably not get it right the first time. You can always redo it." I did the splice, reloaded the machine, they hit rewind and play... and it was perfect. Their jaws hit the floor and I had a hard time not loosing it myself as I was pretty sure I hadn't gotten it right.

That's the difference between sitting at your DAW and working at a place like Daptone.

LOL...that reminds me of a session in 94' where I was him! The producer made me chop 8 bars out of an uncopied (maybe not, but to my knowledge at the time...lol) major label master 2"....when at the time I had only done a few chops on 1/4" on a silly course.....pulled it off, but boy was I sweaty

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by DJGoody

Talking about the deftones et al, with regard to recording 8 track, it is without question, a compromise. A record like White Pony relies on isolation, in particular kick, snare, etc..... fine one can bounce, but you will need to leave the kick and snare on separate tracks, because of the processing necessary to create power with this type of record.

Mind you, I don't care to defend a record like White Pony, because I don't think it's particularly good - but there is no question that heavy records require certain flexibilities specifically within the drum sound. You sometimes need your ambient mics to be separate so you can alter dynamics within song sections, etc..

Heavy records along these lines are generally also played by drummers with little sense of dynamic. In other words, these guys are smashers. Therefore, if you decide not to do the typical close mic setup on the drums, you're in for a pretty ghastly time with controlling cymbals, etc......

Personally, I don't think it has anything to do with being "brave" or whatever....... it has to do with doing the right thing for the task at hand. I don't give a shit if I use 120 tracks - if it's right, so be it. I can just as easily go into another record intending to use nothing more than 8 tracks if it's good for the material.

The Daptones records are essentially carbon copies of things done 35 years ago. To me, that's far from brave. It may be good, but it is certainly not innovative. I get this feeling that a lot of the discussion about using 8 tracks, or "going old school" is about people trying to be hip, or cool, or have some cache.

Unless you print it the way it needs to be.

[DJamesGoody]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

Unless you print it the way it needs to be.

You and I both know that's not reality on a record like that. Printing SOUNDS the way they need to be is one thing, but putting yourself into a fixed position with balance is wholly different, specifically with a record that is all about hype and exaggeration, as in a Deftones record, or the like.....

Daptones, sure...... Deftones, I think not.