Sick of digital sound

[suicide shift]

I have a Pro Tools TDM system, but I am tired of the digital sound especially for heavy electric guitars. Can anyone suggest how I can integrate an analog multitrack recorder into my setup. The recorder would be used to overdub guitar parts where drums and bass have already been recorded in Pro Tools. What equipment do I need so the recorder and PT are synced to each other? I really only need 4 tracks on the analog end since it will be used for overdubbing. What is a good analog multi track recorder w/ balanced / XLR inputs? Thanks.

[themaidsroom]

i have synched an otari mtr-12 1/2" 4-track ( very muchlike the headspace with a 2" 16 - track) with digital and smpte - that's an option
that machine could also have a 1/2" 2 track headstack and be a great place to mix

if your budget is more resplendant you could get an atr 1/2" and have them make you
a four track headstack.......................

1/2"
prices are probably between $2500 - $12,000

with that and a pro tools synch box you can track what you need on analog, but
be warned that the tape compulsion doesn't just subside.... maybe you should get
a 1" 8 - track or a cheap 2" machine.......................

they take work and time and knowledge, but the sound is amazing .....and to my ears worth using every day....just get the best one you can afford and make sure the transport is really reliable if you want to rely on it

b well

try to imagine "kind of blue" or "houses of the holy" or "sgt. peppers" recorded on pro tools................

[warhead]

Well, I suppose you could simply buy a nice 1/2" two track and run it in record while you overdub to pro tools. You would have to configure to monitor PT and the tape machine at the same time so no latency, then slide your tracks back slightly to compensate for delay between the record and playback heads.

Right?

If you're only doing overdubs, just keep the tape rolling and 2 tracks should suffice. Past drums it's typically no more than 2 mics anyhow for pop / rock.

In the end you will be listening to digital again, but hey it's a thought.

War

[Shaman]

Hi ,

Sick of digital sound ?

Perhaps you´re only sick of your current AD converters, Word Clock, Mic, mic pre, compressor chain....?

Digital only sounds as good as its front end...

I never worked with analog tape, but I found with good ribbon mics (like Royer) into a warm, slow mic pre like a Neve, Wunder, Helios into a warm & slow compressor like the VariMu, Fatso, Chandler TG-1...into excellent converters (like cranesong, Prism, Lavry..) or a 192 clocked by a big ben you can achieve great results WITH PT on e-guitars...

Just my 2 cents

Originally Posted by suicide shift

I have a Pro Tools TDM system, but I am tired of the digital sound especially for heavy electric guitars. Can anyone suggest how I can integrate an analog multitrack recorder into my setup. The recorder would be used to overdub guitar parts where drums and bass have already been recorded in Pro Tools. What equipment do I need so the recorder and PT are synced to each other? I really only need 4 tracks on the analog end since it will be used for overdubbing. What is a good analog multi track recorder w/ balanced / XLR inputs? Thanks.

Hey there,

get one of these: Fatso JR
dont have one, but know a few folks who do... they sound great and save a lot of messing around with tape..

JR

[Zarathustra]

Originally Posted by suicide shift

I have a Pro Tools TDM system, but I am tired of the digital sound especially for heavy electric guitars.

The digits are never the problem... First describe your front end. Guitars, amps, mics, pre-amps, etc., etc.

Many of us A.E.'s (aging engineers) recorded our share of big guitar records on BLACKFACE ADATS during the punk resurgence of the early nineties, it can be done well, even with POS equipment. Have you read slipperman's ravings on recording heavy guitars? That's a good place to start.

Who's got that link over to PSW? I'm too lazy on Sunday...

Z

[suicide shift]

My front end ain't bad. I have good convertors, mics and preamps along the lines mentioned . . . Chandler, Royer, Apogee etc. . . . as well as a Fatso, which does wonders for bass guitar IMO. Even with all that, there is a difference when a heavy guitar hits analog tape.

[rolo]

i agree.... great convertors, like apogee, lucid, prism etc and great pre's make all the difference. i have some nice pre's like studers, millennia's , summits, but i also like to use a joe meek vc1q on electric gtr. you can find these on ebay for about $300-$450. nice little pre. also check into a plug in by CRANE SONG called PHOENIX. i have a Fatso, and i think the Phoenix does a better job for tape like saturation. it does not take up very much dsp, you can have several open, as opposed to having only one fatso, and it's about $600.... that leaves you with $$$ left over to buy a good pre. Phoenix is only for TDM. in any case... for the same amount you'd spend on a GOOD tape machine (not a cheap otari, etc... just cause it's tape does not mean it'll sound like a studer), you can buy a great pre or convertor, and a killer plug in.

[Ted Nightshade]

I would at least consider just making the whole record on analog tape.

[5down1up]

my 100 points are going straight to TED thumbsup

[Zarathustra]

Originally Posted by suicide shift

My front end ain't bad. I have good convertors, mics and preamps along the lines mentioned . . . Chandler, Royer, Apogee etc. . . . as well as a Fatso, which does wonders for bass guitar IMO. Even with all that, there is a difference when a heavy guitar hits analog tape.

Damn!? What brand of guitar strings do you use then?

Z

[Midlandmorgan]

So exactly where do the benefits of going to tape first come in? Is it in the tape machine's electronics, or the actual domain manipulation on a specific brand of tape itself?

Could the same desired 'benefit' of a tape based system be achieved by having the tape machine in rec/pause mode, with no motion, or does the tape need to actually be moving from rec heads to playback heads to get "that analog sound"? And since the final product is going to end up digital anyway, what benefits are obtained by putting off AD conversion to the last possible moment?

A thought as much as a question...

[5down1up]

tape has an unique sound . to get the desired effect you have to record it to tape . the more level you send to tape the more compression you get +
depending on the machine , gain etc ... the eq curve + dynamics of a signal defenately changes , to most ears ... in a FAT way .

the sad thing starts when transfering to a digital system again ...
yeah yeah yeah AD, AD, AD .
somehow i was never able to capture a signal from the analog domain 1:1 to digital . if it was a dat , cd , pt or ... it just loses its meat , no matter if i used digis , apogees , hedd etc.

why you wanna use it anyway even if you lose a lot when doing the conversion ?
just in fact of the sound ...

nowadays we gonna use 192khz sampling rates to end up being an 128k/b mp3 fuuck

as usual , people dont give a SHIT ! well , damn sad , but the " lets play it to tape days " have changed to lets record it word by word and spend some month on riding the levels ... hrhrhr . wrong attitude imho ... but thats how the game goes .

[Ted Nightshade]

The real advantage to using analog tape is that you have exited the digital experiment, and are using a solid proven recording medium that has stood the test of time.

Trying to take that into the great digital experiment loses a lot of what you gained.

That said, a lot of the sound of tape can be taken into the digital domain. It's just about the ultimate test of a digital system to feed it from tape and see what made it and what didn't. It can be very frustrating!

But once you start manipulating that digitally, you are really heading away from the benefit of recording to tape to begin with. Except for digital "splicing", which shouldn't change the sound and is quite a bit handier in the digital realm.

If you haven't recorded with a healthy good-quality analog machine, you owe it to yourself to do so!

[maks]

oh ,you guys should contact Gary at www.soundsandvisions.com they got a boat load of different tape machines

[doorknocker]

Originally Posted by 5down1up

tape has an unique sound . to get the desired effect you have to record it to tape . the more level you send to tape the more compression you

True, but a distorted guitar signal is usually heavily compressed to begin with. I want to capture the sound of the amp and that's why I'm happy going directly to PT. A good mic (57 or Beyer M160 usually) and a great pre like the TG-2 will do for me.

For cleaner sounds, a good stompbox compressor can work wonders. The Analog Man BiComprossor is AMAZING. i couldn't believe the difference it makes with clean guitar sounds. In fact I'm now often going direct by way of the IBP's DI, another genius small-sized piece.

Andi

www.doorknocker.ch

[toledo3]

Maybe it's hitting me the wrong way, but alot of the responses are condescending and ignorant.

Even with the best front end in the world, there is a fundamental difference in tone between tape and digital. I guess maybe if you have never used a professional tape machine you would reply with comments about digital being peachy. And I am not saying that for some, digital is not better. I am only saying that improving a/d and front end will only take you so far if you like the sound of tape. That should be OBVIOUS.

Warhead's point was about the best I have found for a working method. Having the tape chase the machine can be sketchy.....contrary to popular opinion, I think it is better for the computer to chase the tape (flame awy! eh). But really, just going to the tape, and straight into digital and time aligning seems to be easy and relatively painless.

[jackmac]

What are you using to produce the heavy guitar sounds in the first place? Amps, guitars, the player, etc? The guitar issue might be before the medium in which it is captured.

[lflier]

Originally Posted by toledo3

Maybe it's hitting me the wrong way, but alot of the responses are condescending and ignorant.

Even with the best front end in the world, there is a fundamental difference in tone between tape and digital. I guess maybe if you have never used a professional tape machine you would reply with comments about digital being peachy. And I am not saying that for some, digital is not better. I am only saying that improving a/d and front end will only take you so far if you like the sound of tape. That should be OBVIOUS.

Ditto that.

[Sirocco]

did you try a analog summer like audient sumo etc?

[5down1up]

[QUOTE=doorknocker] that's why I'm happy going directly to PT.

thumbsup i am happy with pt , too . not in fact of that it provides the best sound ive ever heard BUT for the reason that i am able to have a complete studio owned by myself thats rocksolid and flexable ( how cool is that ?! ) .

this wouldnt be possible 20 years ago with the amount of money i was able to invest !

thats what its all about for me ...

if a studer/ssl combo sounds better or not ?

for my ears a sensless discussion ... yall judge for yourself

and keep watching your wallets

[rolo]

in response to toledo's thread... and it defense of my views.... yes i have used killer tape machines, on several occasions. yes, there is a difference, but you can get close, and sometimes better recording with the right front end, or the right gear.. on digital. maybe you just have never found the right "non-tape" system. i do still believe a killer analog (pre's & comps) and convertors are totally necessary to get the best sound (and that is always subjective, take it for what it is).