Mixing to Digital vs. Mixing to Tape

[soupking]

Okay, I know there's probably threads on such a general subject, the problem is the words are too common.

So, I poise the question is mixing to digital vs. tape require a different kind of attention? For instance, it seems like bass isn't captured to digital at all like it does to tape. Also my treble seems to be a lot more 2-dimensional like it's pressed up against a wall.

Granted, I'm just trying to dump tape straight in w/o any conversion, so maybe that's my problem. But I don't have money for a converter right now so I was curious if there's a completely different ear required for digital?

[Kiwiburger]

What exactly are you doing? 4 track cassette? To DAT? Or a PC?

If you are getting your audio into any sort of digital recorder, it has passed through an a/d converter, and you are hearing it via a d/a converter. You can't go "straight in w/o any conversion". You are using whatever internal conversion is built in.

There is good analog and bad analog.
There is good digital and bad digital.

I'm guessing you are comparing bad analog with bad digital?

With bad analog (cassette tape) you had to boost treble before and after, because it got lost. You also didn't have to worry so much about noise, because the tape hiss covered up most other noise. There was no dynamic range to speak of, so it sort of functioned like a compressor, saturater and peak limiter all combined.

It definately takes a totally different tracking and mixing approach to switch to digital. And there are aspects of the old compressed, saturated and limited sound that is very desirable. This explains the millions of plugins and hardware boxes that try to bring back 'that' sound. (Although we are talking about the sound of Good analog, not bad).

[soupking]

If you are getting your audio into any sort of digital recorder, it has passed through an a/d converter, and you are hearing it via a d/a converter. You can't go "straight in w/o any conversion". You are using whatever internal conversion is built in.

K, then that must be my problem cuz it sounds great off the tape. I'm using a 1/4" reel-to-reel 8-track. The signal path was dynamics through v72s into a pultec to tape so the sound is pretty rich.

I'll remember that I need a converter in order to translate that sound to a digital medium. Dumping it straight in just doesn't give it justice.

Not that I really planning on going to digital anytime soon. I'd be happier bouncing tape for a mix and then give it to somebody for mastering.

Thanks Kiwiburger.

[Kiwiburger]

You wouldn't be related to Walters would you?

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by soupking

So, I poise the question is mixing to digital vs. tape require a different kind of attention?

In one word yes.

They each have their benefits and drawbacks. You have to learn these on your own and decide which applies best for the task at hand. Some people swear by mixing to tape and others will have nothing to do with it. They are both right.

Originally Posted by soupking

Granted, I'm just trying to dump tape straight in w/o any conversion, so maybe that's my problem. But I don't have money for a converter right now so I was curious if there's a completely different ear required for digital?

You are trying to dump tape straight to what?

[ScottTunes]

Soupking, you already have A/D converters, or you wouldn't be able to transfer taped material to PC (or DAW) - I'm assuming you are transferring to PC.

I too record to quarter inch 8 trk tape, then transfer to PC for mixing. For converters I used to use an Echo Layla (7 yrs ago), then the Presonus Firepod (2 or 3 yrs ago), and now Presonus Firestation. Granted these are not the best A/D converters, but they work well, and provide great results, to the point where most listeners think they are still hearing the tape.

Make certain there is enough headroom when transferring tape to PC (or whatever DAW you are using), so you're not getting any digital "overs."

It might be worth upgrading your converters too. You are listening to two kinds, A/D and D/A. I find the Presonus to be more than adequate. But searching this and other forums will give you all huge list of converters in a variety of price ranges.

[ScottTunes]

why did that last post have two different type sizes?

[mic anon]

What exactly is this thread about?

[theblue1]

I think it's about conversion without converters... which is, I'm thinking, a lot like Flannery O'Connors Holy Church of Christ Without Christ in her black comedy, Wiseblood.

[soupking]

Wow...Deep and wide, deep and wide.

Okay, just to clarify things this thread is about dumping tape recording onto a Powerbook and how it sucks without better pro conversion.

Thanks gang!

[sada10]

Originally Posted by soupking

Wow...Deep and wide, deep and wide.

Okay, just to clarify things this thread is about dumping tape recording onto a Powerbook and how it sucks without better pro conversion.

Thanks gang!

Wow-praise the Lord-another satisfied and educated reader!stike

[u b k]

you were jacking v72->pultec tracks into a powerbook's built-in input?

yes, you need external converters. try the 2192 or hedd, your tone will survive the transfer.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[soupking]

you were jacking v72->pultec tracks into a powerbook's built-in input?

No, no, no. To tape, a 1/4" 8-track, and then I tried dumping into a powerbook.

yes, you need external converters. try the 2192 or hedd, your tone will survive the transfer.

Cool, thanks man!

[Kiwiburger]

The signal path was dynamics through v72s into a pultec to tape so the sound is pretty rich.

Soup King - it's very uncool to make up stories. You now have zero credibility.

[Dan]

What the?

I'm confiscating your pultecs.

How could you own that gear, and not know you need better converters?

[soupking]

Soup King - it's very uncool to make up stories. You now have zero credibility.

Are you being sarcastic? I meant what I said. I don't need to tell stories on GS. I've got Final Draft Pro.