Tape->DAW or DAW->Tape...does it matter?

[Justynfromnz]

so let me begin by saying that i have little to no tape skills. I've watched other people make the meters bounce around and the closest thing i have ever had to experience myself would be making tape loops whilst trying to copy stockhausen and producing crappy Musique concrète while at uni.

However, Having listened to the last album my band recorded to tape as oppossed to straight to DAW i have been thinking...

We went to tape and once the tracks were filled up we flew it into bro-tools , smpte locked computer and tape machine and then kept tracking.
Would it make a difference if you went straight to the DAW then after you'd finished tracking then recorded back to and mixed off the 24track?
Do you loose too much in the transition?
I keep reading on the posts here that digital will add nothing (for better or worse)
so would it kinda be the same end result?Would it be noticeable at 96k (or 192k)?
Cause then I could experiment with various amounts of level into the tape machine without ruining anyones performances...(Cause i have no idea on how much tape comp will be cool down stream on certain instruments)....

so long story short....does 24 tracks of tape into computer sound the same as 24 tracks of computer into tape...
Are levels out of a computer totally different to what would be going into a tape machine normally and would you have to go through the console again?

I did a search but couldn't find anything similar to this post.
So thanks in advance. Your experience is valuable to me
Cheers
Justyn

[thejook]

Originally Posted by Justynfromnz

so long story short....does 24 tracks of tape into computer sound the same as 24 tracks of computer into tape...

No. Not sure why. It sure does help to put DAW tracks to tape, but not as much as tracking to it in the first place then transferring.

[maskedman72]

tape 1st here.

[themaidsroom]

tape first
lock
dump tracks
new piece of tape that's locked
(work tape perhaps that will be used many times)
dump
decide what piece of tape to fly during mix
whatever is most crucial and can exist
without being converted is the best plan
in my opinion......conversion is a necessary
evil, unavoidable at times, but degradation, even at 192.....


be well

- jack

[RoundBadge]

Originally Posted by themaidsroom

in my opinion......conversion is a necessary
evil, unavoidable at times, but degradation, even at 192.....


be well

- jack

Agreed..and keep fighting the good fight with good conversion..
Lavry,Apogee,Prism,etcstike

[Justynfromnz]

ok cool
thanks a ton
does anyone know why it works better tape first?
or is it like something that works because it just does?
My other plan involves working out a way to get audio on tape on the record head and off the playback head at the same time, then spotting the delayed audio back whatever the delay is...kinda using the tape machine like a plug in. BUt still trying to work out how to do that!I guess im trying to get the sound of tape with the speed of DAW workflow.

[Benmrx]

I'm in the same boat here.

In the past I've done tape 1st, then dump into pro tools and continue (no way to sync)
But than a while ago the tape machines power supply took a dump and I was forced to track straight to PT. I will say that the sounds did lack, but being able to do multiple takes, comp takes, etc. was VERY nice. I ended up being really happy with the outcome, even though it could have sonically sounded better, I feel like I was able to better keep the integrety of the song and get the best takes possible.

So now (that the tape machine is back up and running...thank GOD!) I've been trying to figure out the best way to track through the tape, and go off the repro head in PT. My problem is how to feed the artists headphones. The only way to do it is to send their overdub to their headphones before it hits tape.

I did a quick test using PTLE, using a hardware insert, and making a loop to and from the tape machine (while recording) coming off the repro head of about 4500 samples of latency. So when just tracking it would be a bit less than that (still need to do that test)

It would also get wierd with punch ins.

I figure (at least for control room monitoring) you could set up a buss that has the intire mix delayed by 4500 samples, and just don't send the current overdub to that buss. Then after the overdub, nudge the track back 4500 samples, send it to the delayed buss and move on to the next overdub.

[PHILANDDON]

The reason why tape-first sounds better is simple, isn't it? There's one less generation of audio, if you tape first. Tape to digital...voila. Otherwise, digital to tape to digital......

[Drumsound]

I agree its best to hit tape first.

[drBill]

Agreed. Tape first then transfer.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by PHILANDDON

The reason why tape-first sounds better is simple, isn't it? There's one less generation of audio, if you tape first. Tape to digital...voila. Otherwise, digital to tape to digital......

actually, it's not quite that simple. i'm not sure if it's loading, or transient accuracy, or what, but compression in any form --- tape, fet, or otherwise --- does not yield the same results when done to a live signal as opposed to a digitized one.

as with so many things in this game, the differences are subtle, but somehow visceral. in particular, overheads behave much better when compressed before conversion than after, doubly so when compressed before tape before conversion. acoustic guitars also come to mind.

i got no explanations, only observations...


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[quincyg]

Originally Posted by Benmrx

I'm in the same boat here.

My problem is how to feed the artists headphones. The only way to do it is to send their overdub to their headphones before it hits tape.

I did a quick test using PTLE, using a hardware insert, and making a loop to and from the tape machine (while recording) coming off the repro head of about 4500 samples of latency. So when just tracking it would be a bit less than that (still need to do that test)

It would also get wierd with punch ins.

I figure (at least for control room monitoring) you could set up a buss that has the intire mix delayed by 4500 samples, and just don't send the current overdub to that buss. Then after the overdub, nudge the track back 4500 samples, send it to the delayed buss and move on to the next overdub.

how about putting in splitters off of your pres and sending to your mixer for phone mix?

[Justynfromnz]

cool
thanks all for your advice
It will save me paying a bunch of cash to do experiments and so forth
tops
Justyn

[Benmrx]

Originally Posted by quincyg

how about putting in splitters off of your pres and sending to your mixer for phone mix?

I had thought about that, because I could get the splits from half-normaling the patchbay. I guess I just assumed there is some kind of signal degridation going on. But we all know what happens when you assume

It would just involve making a patch for every channel that's being recorded just for headphones....and with basic tracking......for me that's usually around 16. Add to that any patches done for the sake of the signal to tape and that's getting into alot of patching. Maybe I should just get some more cables and not be so lazy

Isn't anyone else doing this...and if so, what's your monitoring set-up like for both control room and cue mixes.

My big beef with doing the split idea mentioned above is that the artist will get their headphone feed pre-tape.....this means as soon as the artist wants to hear playback from tape in their headphones I have to change it up. My Ghost actually has a knob (as most boards do) that will put whatever is going to the control room to the cue mix, so they hear the same thing you hear. Now with this...my problem is that they do the take with a certain mix going on in their headphones, and when they hear it back it's a totally different mix, and could throw them off.

Maybe I'm just being too difficult, but I just keep thinking there must a be a more logical, streamlined way to do this....if so it's

[Benmrx]

Originally Posted by u b i k

........compression in any form --- tape, fet, or otherwise --- does not yield the same results when done to a live signal as opposed to a digitized one.

thumbsup

I've found this to be true as well. Not so much the same story when working with tape. My only decent outboard compression of any kind are actually the optical limiters in the Langevin DVC (great unit BTW), and I've noticed a pretty big difference (most obviously with vocals) the that DVC does not respond the same at all when I'm sending it a signal from PT as opposed to a live mic or tape.

It's actually a nice blessing in disguise (at least for me) because it forces you to focus on getting the sounds you want at the tracking stage.