So i have this 1/4" deck.....

[ajcamlet]

I'm interested printing some mixes to a 1/4" deck, for the sound. I dont really want to archive the mixes on tape per-se. I'd like to get the sound of the tape and then go into a masterlink. Do i just run the mix buss to the deck, then the deck to the ML, and roll tape when i'm printing?

[Jay Kahrs]

1) What make & model of deck?

2) Do you have an MRL for it?

[ajcamlet]

Hi Jay:

Its a Tascam 32, nothing terrific, but functional, and in good shape.

I've hardly ever used it, since i usually print only to the masterlink.

ok - dumb question: What's an MRL?

[Drumsound]

Originally posted by ajcamlet


ok - dumb question: What's an MRL?

A Magnetics Reference Labs tape for callibrating your deck.

[Jay Kahrs]

Yup. Without an MRL you have no way to align, bias & calibrate the deck and know what level your sending to it or getting back from it. A 1/4" shortie MRL will set you back about $90-100 but you'll need one if you want to do any of kind of serious work on the deck. You can order one from Blevins Audio, JRF or any serious audio shop like PAD or Westlake.

[bing81]

FWIW, mixing to quarter inch doesn't add much .. well, depending on deck, levels tape etc. I bought a Revox for the same thing, but in a few tests have found that it didn't really do as much as I was hoping. On the other hand, taping individual tracks to the deck and then into your DAW .. that gets more interesting. It's on the tracks that you need "tape", even if you then mix in the box. Doing it the other way round is less effective.

My .2 euros ..

[echorec]

Originally posted by bing81
FWIW, mixing to quarter inch doesn't add much ..

Well, I have to disagree. I did some A/B testing yesterday and the 1/4" sounded a lot better. I am mixing on an analog console, I guess if you just mix in the box and send it out from the D/A, the difference will be much smaller.

[ulysses]

Yes, mixing to 1/4" does add "much." I can't speak for a Tascam 32, but if you have a 2-track machine that has a lot of headroom you can really get some glue on your mix by applying more magnetic flux than the tape can successfully store. Think of it like a big fast limiter with a lot of latency. My suggestion, since you don't care about archiving, is to run signal from the playback head back into the DAW *while* you're printing the mix. You do this by putting the recorder in "repro" mode and start recording. In other words, the audio is on the tape for all of 120 milliseconds before it gets played back and re-digitized. This will eliminate print-through and HF storage loss, even if you record at incredibly hot levels (of course you can still get HF loss due to saturation). And you don't ever have to label the tape because you're done with it immediately. You can bulk-erase it and re-use it on the next song right away. It's still a good idea to get a fresh piece of tape now and then, as it can get kind of tattered sounding after a couple hundred trips through the transport.

[ajcamlet]

Thak you very much, Justin, thats exactly the information i was looking for.

ajc

[Jay Kahrs]

You still need the MRL so you know what level the deck is operating at. Without that you could get anything from a whacky frequency response to too much hiss, distortion, crazy drops or gain in levels or some combination of those.

[syncro]

That's exactly how I use my ReVox PR99 Mk.III routed back to DAW. Just like luxurious Magneto with biiig latency 8-) And I can definitely say after a lot of a/b testing that mixes sounds a lot more glued and they are overall much warmer sounding when using the ReVox. I like it very much because of the thing it does to bass. I do reggae, dub and hiphop and I like the garage feel it adds to my mixes. I think it depends on the style if you like it, but it alters the sound significantly.

Just my opinion. Regards, Alexandr.
www.gunjah.cz

[cdog]

Originally posted by syncro
...it alters the sound significantly.
www.gunjah.cz

Not necessarily in a good way IMO, depends on the deck and the mix though. Some people mix to 1/4" like the gospel and I can understand why, but I think it gives some people the wrong impression; i.e., that its a "magic bullet" for your mix. Not so I say.

The compression and saturation are what I find desireable in mixing to tape. My latest slut-tastic technique is to mix through a Smart C2 (2-4 db @1.5:1) followed by a EL Fatso tranny engaged set to warmth 1-3 (program dependant). The C2 gives it a little punch, the Fatso a tiny bit of warmth, puts a smile on my face (a HEDD at the end would make it a really big smile).

Not the same sound as mixing to tape (its a little more hifi IMO with quality converters) but it gives me 100% consistent results I'm quite satisfied with.

I think the technique Ulysses mentioned is the way to go if you want the real tape mojo magic to work its voodoo. Everyone has their own way of working thats best for them, its all about finding the techniques that work best for you.

[echorec]

Originally posted by cdog

I think the technique Ulysses mentioned is the way to go if you want the real tape mojo magic to work its voodoo. Everyone has their own way of working thats best for them, its all about finding the techniques that work best for you.

That is true. I like to mix from my console to 1/4" and then bring the tapes to my mastering engineer. His equipment is mostly analog so this way of working saves me from one extra A/D and D/A conversion.

[ulysses]

I thought I should also mention that my 1/4" deck does 7.5, 15, and 30 ips. We often debate the merits of 15ips vs 30ips mixes because they both have their advantages. 7.5 isn't really a contender because the bottom octave it buys you isn't audible while the 3dB of hiss is. So if I had a machine that didn't do at least 15ips, I probably wouldn't be sending mixes to it at all. Instead, I would be bouncing individual tracks off of it as a processor and back into the DAW for re-alignment and mixdown. Like I'd maybe send a vocal track to it, or a drum submix, or just the snare track, or maybe a bass guitar track if the machine was really well-calibrated. Since I track to 2" tape I have no need to do this, but if you're sitting there with a DAW and a nice worthless 1/4" mono fulltrack machine you should try it out and see what you think.

ulysses

[ajcamlet]

this deck will do 7.5 & 15 ips. Its not a bad machine ( Tascam's "mastering deck")

IT been tuned up and overhauled by Tascam themselves so its in good shape.

This is my first foray into Tape machines , and its more of a learning experience than anything else.

thaks your your help justin.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally posted by cdog
Not necessarily in a good way IMO, depends on the deck and the mix though. Some people mix to 1/4" like the gospel and I can understand why, but I think it gives some people the wrong impression; i.e., that its a "magic bullet" for your mix. Not so I say....

I totally agree. I always ask for a digital master as well as the tape and the digital wins more than half of the time. On the other hand, I think analog multi-track is pretty much a slam-dunk every time and I've never heard any digital effect that approaches it. I would invest in top drawer converters before investing in a 2-track just as an effect.

[Jay Kahrs]

I'd agree with what Bob said about better converters. Tape isn't a magic fix-all, the only time it comes close to being that is for rock music where tracking to digital still just doesn't feel or react right for me though it's getting damn close. The last digital project I did was almost acceptable

Bob, are you specificing where you want the digital master to come from? If I mix to analog I do a capture at 44.1 and send that and the reels to mastering and with one or two exceptions the tape ALWAYS wins. I've never taken a digital copy right off the console, maybe I should one of these days.