2 Track Analog for Tracking into PT?

[chrisrulesmore]

I am interested in getting an Otari two track 1/4" or 1/2" analog recorder for tracking directly into Pro Tools. I don't intend on using the recorder as anything more than an analog effect on front end tracking.

Something along the lines of:

Great River ME-1NV-->Analog Recorder-->Rosetta 200 A/D-->SPDIF in to Mbox.

The million dollar question is whether I could still monitor out of pro tools while tracking to the machine. In other words, will the analog machine line out function while I am tracking to it? The idea is that the recorder would simply be one more step in the input chain.

I never track more than 2 at a time, so I'm thinking that if I can get around the monitoring issue, I could then take a finished mix out of Pro Tools and record a master bus mix to tape then back in for final conversion. Cheap way to get into analog?

-Chris

[dokushoka]

The Otari machines aren't really prized for their "vibe." You might want to look at some of the older Ampex stuff.

[Dave Peck]

Originally Posted by chrisrulesmore

I am interested in getting an Otari two track 1/4" or 1/2" analog recorder for tracking directly into Pro Tools. I don't intend on using the recorder as anything more than an analog effect on front end tracking.

Something along the lines of:

Great River ME-1NV-->Analog Recorder-->Rosetta 200 A/D-->SPDIF in to Mbox.

The million dollar question is whether I could still monitor out of pro tools while tracking to the machine. In other words, will the analog machine line out function while I am tracking to it? The idea is that the recorder would simply be one more step in the input chain.

I never track more than 2 at a time, so I'm thinking that if I can get around the monitoring issue, I could then take a finished mix out of Pro Tools and record a master bus mix to tape then back in for final conversion. Cheap way to get into analog?

-Chris

You will have a very noticeable delay between the signal going onto the record head and coming off the repro head.

You could just monitor the live track before going to the tape machine (or monitor in simulsync off the record head while sending the repro head signal to ProTools). In either case, you'll have to then scoot the tracks back after every take to line them up in PT. And yeah, get something better than an Otari.

DP

[Dzoing]

What You want to do is going to be a synchro nightmare. As Dave said, you'll get some delay between record and repro head. Even if you only monitor the live track before tape (+the PT tracks already done), you will get a delayed track in PT, which you will want to time-offset at a later date. The tape machine has to be very "time-stable and reliable".

Buy yourself a Studer for that matter (something like A807, A810...). SMPTE option on the 2-track might help for your purpose, but the heads have then to be parallel tracks. Track width on the tape will be smaller as with butterfly (no timecoding-) heads -- sound quality will be therefore a bit not so good with a timecode track, I mean specs like S/N and so on... but it might not bother you too much depending of what kind of music and levels you want to track.

Hope this helps

Would it not be better to get a 2" 24 track to track to then dump to protools?

I'm actually thinking of the same type of set up.

What I"m picturing is

Track a 2 track mix to ptools from sequencer as a rough.
Lay vocals straight to ptools
On 2" synced to ptools separate drums, synth bass etc... and record overdubs of guitar/bass other "instruments"

Fly it all to ptools for editing/mixing

[Bravin Neff]

Originally Posted by Dzoing

What You want to do is going to be a synchro nightmare.

I thought I was clear on this, but maybe I'm not... it sounds to me the layback method is being suggested, in which case I would think sync would be a non issue, no? Everything would be in realtime to the DAW, just delayed the amount of time it takes to go from the sync head to the repro head. And that is easy to calculate (you could also record a direct signal track into the DAW and use it as a guide to adjust the layback tracks).

My thought was that the only thing the tapedeck's wow and flutter would create is slight pitch imperfections into the audio stream to the DAW, but the DAW's recording would remain constant -- and the layback track audio in the DAW would line up at both the beginning and the end (and everywhere in between) and would simply need one nudge to get the whole thing lined up. Is that right?

Thanks,
Bravin Neff

[SiliconAudioLab]

This should be a no brainer - just do it. You're going to have these delays with (rec~pb head) regardless of whether PTs is in the picture or not.

Tape's a fantistic sound. I do it here every chance I get. You can nudge any timing issues in PT after you captured into tape. That's kinda one of the rare cases that makes PT shine over tape in that regard anyway (ease of editing).

Just monitor from any takes that have been laid into PT for downstream takes and hit that tape. Suck into PT and realign any delay. You'll find it'll be the exact amount each time and will be just a few keyboard clicks (keyboard actually) of the same amont everytime. *Boom* done.

Example:

1. Acoustic guitar (your next hit song) - record in stereo to the tape, the entire basic structure (vrs/chr/br/lead etc...) maybe mix a drum loop into your headphone only for timimg.

1a. BAM! Suck that guitar into PT (good AD converters only please)

2. Playback guitar from PT into headphones - hit record on that badboy tape and sing w/ your perfect pitch voice!

2a. BAM! Suck that vocal into PT - time align to guitar

3. Call your drummer - hook up stereo overhead mics - you DO have a good room don't you!?

3a. BAM! Suck them Bonham drums into PT - time align to guitar

3b. Have the drummer hit the snare then BD then each tom then HH then cymbs a hundred different ways with the mic(s) first as they were (overhead/stereo) THEN again moved up close to each perc instrument.

3c. BAM! Suck them hits into PT so you can swap the sound out here and there when needed. (*Caution only swap the hits in relation to drummers main perfomance - avoid the PT grid if at all possible.)

4. Bass player - Tape ~> PT. Same thing.

Repeat for the kazoo and banjo players

If it's a whole band then even better! Play the song together each time but grab the 2 takes as stated above for that "band playing togther" vibe.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by dokushoka

The Otari machines aren't really prized for their "vibe." You might want to look at some of the older Ampex stuff.

thumbsup

Or a 16 track 2" ... like an MM1200

[Dzoing]

C'mon: that's right it's going to work. The tape machine must have very good speed and wow and flutter specs.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by Dzoing

C'mon: that's right it's going to work. The tape machine must have very good speed and wow and flutter specs.

Not if you record through the tape machine to digital in real time, then slide the track back by the head gap time ...

[chrisrulesmore]

Originally Posted by lucey

Not if you record through the tape machine to digital in real time, then slide the track back by the head gap time ...

Soooo, is it easy to calculate the gap time? Would I just be eye/ear-balling it as it were? Sounds like recording a simultaneous feed straight into Pro Tools and then using that as the reference point for the delayed analog feed might be the way to go...

-Chris

[lucey]

Originally Posted by chrisrulesmore

Soooo, is it easy to calculate the gap time? Would I just be eye/ear-balling it as it were? Sounds like recording a simultaneous feed straight into Pro Tools and then using that as the reference point for the delayed analog feed might be the way to go...

-Chris

actually you can do the math ... say the tape goes 15 inches per second, and you have 1.5 inches between record and play heads, that 0.1 sec ... then add any latency on the digi repro and record ... another XX milliseconds.

you'll need to hit record on the tape then the dig ... not so hard, and it ensures that tape drift is not a factor

[SiliconAudioLab]

Originally Posted by lucey

actually you can do the math ... say the tape goes 15 inches per second, and you have 1.5 inches between record and play heads, that 0.1 sec ... then add any latency on the digi repro and record ... another XX milliseconds.

you'll need to hit record on the tape then the dig ... not so hard, and it ensures that tape drift is not a factor

Right on!

Then it'll be exactly the same for each take (stereo or not) that you pull into protools. So just slide each take forward by exactly that amount each time.

So which tape machine would be "the" way to go that is most cost effective but still gives the benefits of tape?

I'm contemplating doing this when I'm back in New Orleans

[lucey]

Ampex machines are nice ... the 350 can be modded up with tube electronics, or the 440 (which is similar to 2 ch of MM1200), or a 102 which is more money but great if solid.


If you have $7000 get a rebuilt ATR102 from ATR Services.

If you have $350 get this

Audio Villiage has a lot of Ampex 2 tracks for sale

So was I mistaken in thinking go with a 2" machine and track to it,

Or should I just cut everything through a 2 track 1/4"

[lucey]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

So was I mistaken in thinking go with a 2" machine and track to it,

Or should I just cut everything through a 2 track 1/4"

Well, a 2" machine is not very mobile (!) for a guy moving around a lot ... the Mm1200s sound great but take some work to keep up and they dont like humidity.

I'd think a nice 2 track 1/4" or 1/2" at 15ips into PT would make more sense as you could mix to it as well and not all tracks would need to hit tape.

Ok so If I'm reading this straight.

I dont need a sync box right
I'm recording to tape but taking the signal that comes off the repro head (as I'm recording) into protools

Once in protools I'm backing up the tracks to make up for the delay between the record and repro heads

Right?

IF so I got a few ?s
1. Wont I need quite a few tapes since every take is being recorded over the same tape.

2. What's the 2trk equivalent of a studer 2" 24 trk

3. Since this sounds like the best way to "fatten" even things that are already recorded by looping out of ptools and back in (which I'd probably do for drums since midi timing is involved, I'd rather record all the drums at once
WHY ARE people Buying Fatso's and analog plugs if true analog (which sounds better and alot bigger IMO) can be had for as little as $350

[lucey]

Studer is not the best sound ... that's a myth. Studer has the best transport and the fastest punches. It's the Pro Tools of tape, not the tone king.

Stephens and Ampex are the best sound. Some MCI machines are good too. Ampex has the most 2 track decks out there ... the link I gave to Audio Villiage is a home run for Ampex 2 tracks.

Tape is good until the oxide comes off in flakes ... if your machine is right and you clean it every so often, you wont need much tape at all, and ATR Magnetics will soon have plenty for decades thumbsup

[wallace]

The way I did it was to hit record on the tape machine, while at the same time, listening to and recording in PT the DI out of the tape machine (the one without delay) . If I got the take I wanted, I rewound the tape, switched the tape machine to playback, then made a new track and recorded the "tape" take into PT. Then I lined the two tracks up by zooming in. Finally, delete the original DI track.

I wouldn't want to guess where the take should have been by automatically sliding the track back. You also loose out on listening to what you're playing. It takes a little more time to do the 2 passes, but at least you'll know what you played is in the right place.

Originally Posted by wallace

The way I did it was to hit record on the tape machine, while at the same time, listening to and recording in PT the DI out of the tape machine (the one without delay) . If I got the take I wanted, I rewound the tape, switched the tape machine to playback, then made a new track and recorded the "tape" take into PT. Then I lined the two tracks up by zooming in. Finally, delete the original DI track.

I wouldn't want to guess where the take should have been by automatically sliding the track back. You also loose out on listening to what you're playing. It takes a little more time to do the 2 passes, but at least you'll know what you played is in the right place.

If I'm understanding this correctly, couldnt you just record the DI out take and the repro head simultaneousely to separate tracks, then match the tracks and have a delay amount that will be consistent every time for that machine at that speed?

And since you need to hear what you are playing couldnt you route the DI out to an aux as a monitor for every track thereafter?

[Mike Caffrey]

First singnal path then syncing.

You probably will not find a low cost two track deck with output for both the sync and repro head simultaneously. So, split the sginal after the pre and before the input of the tape machine. Record one side, and monitor the other.


For calcualting the head gap, record a single transient sound. Split the signal and record one side directly to digital and other through the repro head. Line them up visually and then look at the difference betwee the original time stamp and the new current time stamp and then you know how much you have to slide it back every time.


While you're at it, I'd also re-record the direct transiten signal by running it back out of your D to As, through the machine in repro and back through your A to Ds. You may want to try this approach with track and it will be nice to know the answer already.

Yes, there may be some sginal degradation fron the multiple conversion, but you're doing this as an effect, so that doesn't matter as long as it soudns good. I've had people bring me problem tracks that we much improved this way. This would also be an easy way to create a John Lennon ADT vocal effect.

OK I think I'm in, I'm gonna try it

[Hope209]

Sorry if this is a little off topic, but I thought it would be better here than in a new thread.

What are the differences in using 24-track tape recorders instead of 2-track tape recorders? How much you can push/saturate each track or are there sonic differences in recording to each?

[wallace]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

If I'm understanding this correctly, couldnt you just record the DI out take and the repro head simultaneousely to separate tracks, then match the tracks and have a delay amount that will be consistent every time for that machine at that speed?

And since you need to hear what you are playing couldn't you route the DI out to an aux as a monitor for every track thereafter?

With my machine, there was only one output and you could only listen in repro, or with the signal that was just passing through the machine (no delay ). There may be some machines that allow you to send the repro and DI sound out at the same time, and in that case, yeah you could record them both essentially do what I was saying above.

It occurred to me though, that you might be able to make this whole process easier by recording in grid mode and setting your grid length to the number of samples the repro head offsets the signal by. Then when you re-import the tape tracks, you only have to shift the waveform back by one grid space. Make sense? I bet that would work.

Tape is cool and sounds great, but I don't think I'd want to do it again (w/ PT) without an assistant. Plus, I think digital will get better. (OK here comes my tangent). I was watching the history channel a few days ago and they were talking about the invention tape, and how it was utilized by Hitler in WWII for German propaganda. It also pointed out that the original tape sounded pretty bad ( there was also about a 20 or 30 year period before we got to the "golden age" of tape. So I figure that if they can use digital recording for war or propaganda, or if we can wait 20 or 30 years, we'll be at the height of a new medium. Maybe?

[lucey]

Originally Posted by Hope209

Sorry if this is a little off topic, but I thought it would be better here than in a new thread.

What are the differences in using 24-track tape recorders instead of 2-track tape recorders? How much you can push/saturate each track or are there sonic differences in recording to each?

Sure everything sounds different, the electronics, the heads, etc.

2" 16 = 1/4" 2 (almost) assuming equal electronics and head materials and set up.



in other words, nothing sounds the same!

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

First singnal path then syncing.

You probably will not find a low cost two track deck with output for both the sync and repro head simultaneously. So, split the sginal after the pre and before the input of the tape machine. Record one side, and monitor the other.


For calcualting the head gap, record a single transient sound. Split the signal and record one side directly to digital and other through the repro head. Line them up visually and then look at the difference betwee the original time stamp and the new current time stamp and then you know how much you have to slide it back every time.


While you're at it, I'd also re-record the direct transiten signal by running it back out of your D to As, through the machine in repro and back through your A to Ds. You may want to try this approach with track and it will be nice to know the answer already.

Yes, there may be some sginal degradation fron the multiple conversion, but you're doing this as an effect, so that doesn't matter as long as it soudns good. I've had people bring me problem tracks that we much improved this way. This would also be an easy way to create a John Lennon ADT vocal effect.

\

Wallace, Mike spelled out what I was thinking in detail.. If you split the signal coming from the source/pre the you have your monitor signal.

I dont think I'd cut vocals this way, but drums/bass/guitar would probably benefit

[wallace]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

\

Wallace, Mike spelled out what I was thinking in detail.. If you split the signal coming from the source/pre the you have your monitor signal.

I dont think I'd cut vocals this way, but drums/bass/guitar would probably benefit

Gotcha. You still might want to use grid mode and set your grid to the retro gap time if your going to be shifting a lot of tracks.

[Ollie]

Now is the time to blow the dough on a 16 or 24 track tape machine. You can get a good machine for $2500.00 clams, simoleans, greenbacks.

I know somone who just bought a MCI JH16 for 2500. These machines are mostly discrete.

I have a MCI JH24 which you can pick up for about the same price.

Just make sure you understand the condition of the machine before buying it, and for MCI stay away from the dreaded red sockets.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by Ollie

and for MCI stay away from the dreaded red sockets.