Anybody track to digital, dump to 2" tape and stay on tape going forward?

[Quint]

Many people here track to tape, dump to PT, and then mix either ITB or through a console. I've noticed that most of you that do this prefer the sound of tracking to tape and dumping to the computer as opposed to tracking digital and dumping to tape. However, anytime I read about someone preferring the former to the latter, it always comes with the caveat that the digital dumped to tape method also involves a return trip back into the computer again. I can't help but wonder if the the second round of conversion isn't skewing things in favor of the tape to DAW method. I wonder how these two methods would compare if the digital was dumped to tape and stayed on tape (to be mixed off the tape, through a console, to 1/2") instead of going back into the computer. Anybody done it this way?

The reason that I'm asking this is because I'd like to be able to take a mobile digital setup and record (at 96k or higher) wherever works best, due to comfort, acoustics, etc. and then dump to tape afterwards to take advantage of the things that tape does (compression, bass bump, etc). Once I dump to tape, I plan on keeping it analog for the duration of the project. No computers would be involved except during the initial tracking. By the way, I plan on dumping to 2" 16 track, submixing digital tracks through the console to get it down to 16 tracks so that it fits on the tape, if needed.

So, if done this way, maybe digital to tape could compare favorably to tape to digital. Anybody doing this?

[Ricey]

i get to do it this way once in a while and i really prefer it. record and edit in digital first, then you can hit the tape exactly as you like, maximizing signal to tape with no surprises from the drummer

[Quint]

Originally Posted by Ricey

i get to do it this way once in a while and i really prefer it. record and edit in digital first, then you can hit the tape exactly as you like, maximizing signal to tape with no surprises from the drummer

So you're dumping to 2" and mixing off of it through a console right?

What about the sound though? That's my primary concern. How do you think it compares to doing it the other way around, tape to digital? I'd love to have the things that tracking digital offers, but I would hate to give up anything sonically, if tape dumped to digital sounds better than digital dumped to tape.

Also, what sampling rate do you use when you track to digital and dump to tape? It seems to me that, in this case, the higher sampling rate you use, the better since plugins, compatibility, etc. would be a non issue.

[Quint]

Also, just to be clear, I'm referring to an "everything else equal" situation. Just flip flopping which comes first, tape or digital. Obviously the digital to tape method that I'm referring to (no going back into the computer) involves mixing through a console without any plugins. So, to make a fair comparison, is anyone dumping tape to digital and then mixing through a console, using no plugins and entirely outboard? Even if you are mixing ITB, I'd still like to hear your opinions on this.

[Ricey]

i've never had the opportunity to A/B both directions with the same conditions i.e. gear and audio. also, i'm not afraid to add another generation of conversion to the projects, since every pass is a chance to sweeten the tracks and maximize signal-to-noise ratio, giving me less work at mix time. i think either direction is fine, what matters most is your personal work flow really.

[Quint]

Any other thoughts?

[glenn Taylor]

That's the 10 million dollar question. A few years ago when I was going on an my Analog tape machine Buying Binge no.3. I stopped long enough to try an Otari 1" 8 track machine out . This is running at 30 ips. Here is what I found. 1st Test. A client payed me to transfer 1 song from Pro tools through the Otari back to pro tools and mix. Results= it was not any better. 2nd Test. I recorded some drums,bass, perc, guitar,voc to the Otari. Results= I saw God and heard stevie Wonder singing in the back ground. Thoughts= It really did sound good. 3 dimentional,tight bass silky highs. Glenn.

[bass man]

Going to tape in any stage is going to do miracles to the sound even with the medium converters but transferring back to the digital (DA stage)is where you start to loose that magic .
I am recording to digital and mixing ITB and then transfer the mix to 1/4" Studer - it sounds magical but when i go back to digital its

[The MPCist]

I used to track on analog and move the tracks over to PT to continue working/mixing but after a while, I stopped bothering with that... Probably mostly due to clients not seeing the usefulness in such trouble..... I do work in analog with a few clients who are analog heads and we record everything on tape and dump to PT to mix on the SSL.

[JCV]

Originally Posted by Quint

Also, what sampling rate do you use when you track to digital and dump to tape? It seems to me that, in this case, the higher sampling rate you use, the better since plugins, compatibility, etc. would be a non issue.

I would use the highest rate possible. 192KHz will reduce your bandwith to 96KHz - a well cared for and perfectly set tape machine will give you a 100KHz bandwith.

[Hane]

Originally Posted by JCV

I would use the highest rate possible. 192KHz will reduce your bandwith to 96KHz - a well cared for and perfectly set tape machine will give you a 100KHz bandwith.

Analogue tape machines start rolling off slowly above 20KHz if their running 15ips. They might extend to 40KHz at best if, their running at 30ips before they start rolling off.

I don't know of any tape machine with a frequency range that extends to nearly 100KHz.

[2N1305]

Originally Posted by Hane

Analogue tape machines start rolling off slowly above 20KHz if their running 15ips. They might extend to 40KHz at best if, their running at 30ips before they start rolling off.

I don't know of any tape machine with a frequency range that extends to nearly 100KHz.

Indeed. It is physically impossible unless running at over 40ips. I can't recall the calculations but basically it has to do with the maximum gap width and the highest frequency.

2N

[vernier]

I recorded drums to digital once and will never again.

[James Lugo]

Tracking to tape first and dumping to digital sounds better then the other way around to me. Once you track straight from the mic to the computer you've got that digital thing and then all you're doing is trying to knock some of the stank off it with tape. Some guys call it rinsing and it's cool but tracking first to tape is the bomb IMO. We have been tracking like crazy the past couple of weeks, going back and forth between tape to digital and straight to digital (then rinse), man the tape machine is just awesome and the fact that most people don't use it makes it even cooler cuz we do. Tape is beautiful to me.

Drum day to tape:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlNiPnmoRVo

[Quint]

Originally Posted by James 'LA' Lugo

Tracking to tape first and dumping to digital sounds better then the other way around to me. Once you track straight from the mic to the computer you've got that digital thing and then all you're doing is trying to knock some of the stank off it with tape. Some guys call it rinsing and it's cool but tracking first to tape is the bomb IMO. We have been tracking like crazy the past couple of weeks, going back and forth between tape to digital and straight to digital (then rinse), man the tape machine is just awesome and the fact that most people don't use it makes it even cooler cuz we do. Tape is beautiful to me.

Drum day to tape:
YouTube - Drums Brandon Hudson 8/12/10

Just out of curiosity, what converters and sampling rate are you typically using for this?

[James Lugo]

Originally Posted by Quint

Just out of curiosity, what converters and sampling rate are you typically using for this?

Apogee 16X's and usually 44.1.

[Louis Bernstone]

What tape machine do you use?


Posted via the Gearslutz iPhone app

[James Lugo]

Originally Posted by Louis Bernstone

What tape machine do you use?

Studer A800 16 track 2" MKI (circa 1980)

[Louis Bernstone]

Nice. How reliable is it? Do you need to intervene with heads after each take to prevent wow?


Posted via the Gearslutz iPhone app

[Musiclab]

If I'm tracking to 2" tape I stay 2", even if I need to do some edits, I blow it into the computer edit and put it right back, I think tape is a better form of storage anyway, and the extra generation doesn't bother me. If I'm tracking to DAW only it's due to budget, although one time a client came in with a project that was too big for just my daw I/O and I have 48 channels, so we locked the 2" up. I agree totally with James, dumping to tape from the daw gives a little of the tape thang, it's nicer the other way hitting tape first

[dbbubba]

Tracking to tape, dumping to DAW and then mixing either ITB or hybrid with a console is the "cleanest" method because you only hit tape once and you only hit the A to D converters once.

I will agree with MUSICLAB that one extra generation of well recorded analog is not a big issue.
It was a fact of life before digital.
The only detraction to one extra generation is when you are using elevated levels and recording dense harmonic parts.
Things like BG vocals tend to get beat frequencies quite easily which is harmonic distortion from the tape.
This happens enough when you stack BG parts as a result of the actual vocal parts/passes fighting one another and the natural harmonic distortion of analog tape.
If you comp BG vocals parts at elevated levels you start to really pick up extra noises.
No matter how the bias is set I have always had "rocks" down in the BG part.

Of course this stuff is far enough down that it is usually not distracting and in many cases it adds to the sound.
Either way... it's there.

[themaidsroom]

i have worked this way a few times, especially when "recording" and "composition"
are close to being synonymous.......i find all of the important
parts get re-recorded to tape as having the two recording formats sitting
so closely together usually reveals that everything sounds better tracked to
tape........i find digital sounds the best in studios with no tape, or in the minds
of engineers who have not worked with tape in seven or eight years.......
when it is sitting right in front of you.........side by side.......



be well


- jack

[Quint]

Originally Posted by James 'LA' Lugo

Apogee 16X's and usually 44.1.

To my ears, the difference between tape to digital vs digital to tape is greatly diminished when using higher sample rates so that's why I asked what you typically use. Have you ever tried this with higher rates? Actually, that question applies to all of you that feel "tape first" is the clearly better method. I'm just curious because I've noticed that people, who feel that tape before digital is the better of the two methods, typically tend to do this at 44.1 and not higher sample rates. In my experience, if I'm using 96k or higher, I don't really sweat whether digital or tape comes first in the chain.

[author]

Originally Posted by Quint

To my ears, the difference between tape to digital vs digital to tape is greatly diminished when using higher sample rates so that's why I asked what you typically use. Have you ever tried this with higher rates? Actually, that question applies to all of you that feel "tape first" is the clearly better method. I'm just curious because I've noticed that people, who feel that tape before digital is the better of the two methods, typically tend to do this at 44.1 and not higher sample rates. In my experience, if I'm using 96k or higher, I don't really sweat whether digital or tape comes first in the chain.

Is there a difference between 96 and 192, or is 96 enough?

[The dman]

I've done this before with my buddies A827 and I agree it makes more of an impact on the sound going to 2" first. I didn't feel the same lovin going Daw to tape

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by JCV

I would use the highest rate possible. 192KHz will reduce your bandwith to 96KHz - a well cared for and perfectly set tape machine will give you a 100KHz bandwith.

Originally Posted by Hane

Analogue tape machines start rolling off slowly above 20KHz if their running 15ips. They might extend to 40KHz at best if, their running at 30ips before they start rolling off.

I don't know of any tape machine with a frequency range that extends to nearly 100KHz.

Originally Posted by 2N1305

Indeed. It is physically impossible unless running at over 40ips. I can't recall the calculations but basically it has to do with the maximum gap width and the highest frequency.

2N

There are also rationales why using such 'quad' sample rates might actually mean less accurate capture, which has to do with the process of measuring incoming voltages in AD by a series of comparisons to known voltages. The pop science explanation: the less time you have for those comparisons, the less time you have to settle on the most accurate measurement. That's my crude vulgarization of the argument that Dan Lavry offers to those who have requested quad rates in his converters.

[hilarius]

I'm dumping from DAW to 2" and back directly. And I was wondering if theres a difference in recording it back directly into DAW as opposed to recording DAW the tape and then playing the tape back and recording it to DAW. Like what the difference would be in theory. Any thoughts?

[Zep Dude]

I do a lot of work to tape (mm1200) on the way to Pro Tools via jcf and lavery gold converters. I also bump things to tape after the fact.

Both ways are good for the audio for sure so don't sweat it too much. Tape first is slightly more organic sounding and saves you a trip through the DA-AD, but hitting tape afterwards gives you the control to hit at the perfect level for each track and will also sound quite good. Hitting tape afterwards sound a little more clinical, but still quite nice.

I use 48k now as I feel the high end is cleaner than 44.1k but it still has balls in the midrange. 88.2 sounds great but starts to lack in the midrange punch for my taste.