How would you record a band in 4-track tape?

[seansvoice]

Originally Posted by kevin nowhow

What do i need the click track for though, after i am done?

Oh ... you don't need it after you are done but if you have the same click on each analog run you will have an easier reference point when you synch all those tracks in your DAW.

I forgot to mention that if your machine will run 30ips be sure record in that mode. The difference is astonishing. Of course 15ips will do nicely...but I'm just saying.

I used to own an Otari MX70 (1 inch 16 track) and a Wheatstone SP5. The first radio station I ever worked for (in 1971 when I was 14) had an ancient Magnecorder as the main prod. deck. The next station had matched Ampex 440s. I thought I had died and gone to Heaven in that I could mark the tape, squirt a little graphite lube on my fingertips and phase shift my brains out. We had no outboard gear for effects. We DID have an EMT plate reverb, an LA2A and a Gates Level Devil compressor that took about 5 rack spaces. At the time I had no idea what cool stuff I was working with!

The King of Cool was the RCA 44B we had in the control room and the 77 in the production room. The only cooler ribbon mic I have ever used was an RCA KU-3A. If I ever run into an excess cash situation I am almost positive that part of it will go into an AEA KU4...just like the KU-3A without the museum effect!

[jroode]

This is pretty easy. You have to do a stereo "rhythm section" with all of your players tracking at the same time. It's essentially like recording a live gig except you don't plan on keeping any vocals.

Trk 1 = Rhythm section Left (Drums, Bass, Guitars, Keys)
Trk 2 = Rhythm section Right (Drums, Bass, Guitars, Keys)
Trk 3 = Lead and Backing Vocals
Trk 4 = Whatever other lead/fill/double instrumental/vocal parts you deem necessary

You don't have to record Trk 4 all at once. You can punch in and out to get what parts/fills you need on the track.

The key here is that you are making some decisions as you go as to the mix. But that often-times forces guys to focus even better than they normally would. And in most cases, you're going to get a tighter "more musical" feel to the tunes anyway.

BTW... my second recording session, ever, was a 4 track album that I recorded in 1971. I went back and listened to it a few years back and was absolutely SHOCKED at the quality of both the playing and the recording.

I guarantee you, the whole experience will make your band a much better band.

Good luck and I'm kinda jealous.

[Rob Coates]

Originally Posted by seansvoice

People forget that Sgt Pepper was recorded on two 4 track machines. Of those 8 tracks two were tied up with pre-SMPTE synch info.

Keep in mind that the oxide is less dense at the edges of the tape...unstable even. I learned early on to put bass instruments and drums on the outside tracks when possible...keeping the more treble-prone things on the inside tracks. That will keep you from getting a false "sizzle" in those treble instruments.

I would put a click track on one of your tracks, do your basic bass and drums. Dump those into protools after your first pass. Send rough guide mix with click, drums and bass back to one track of the tape...then record three more tracks. Dump those into protools...and just keep doing that until you have everything laid down. When you get ready to edit and mix you can use those guide tracks to synch with each other...then lose all of the click tracks except the original.

You should be able to do a nice job!

This sounds like a workable way to use a 4 track with a DAW. I'm going to try this method once I get my 4 track. What about recording the initial click track for just a few seconds on the first track, then bass or something else on that track while monitoring the click track externally for the rest of the song. Couldn't the few seconds of click track at the beginning of the song be used to sync everything in the end if it's included with each of the 4 tape tracks when dumped to DAW?
I'm still struggling however, to come up with any reason why this would be better sounding than recording all tracks on the DAW, then bouncing them all to tape and back 4 at a time.

[fnninns]

Originally Posted by seansvoice

People forget that Sgt Pepper was recorded on two 4 track machines. Of those 8 tracks two were tied up with pre-SMPTE sync tone.

Wrong.

First, the entire record was not recorded with sync on two machines.
Only one song (I forget which because I don't dwell on this stuff like some people...)

SECOND: They didn't use SMPTE because it was barely invented and probably not used in England or Europe at the time Sgt. Peppers was recorded.
THEY DID USE a 50 hz tone recorded on one track of the 1" 4-track Studer J-37 and that tone drove the capstan motor of the second machine.
This is a VERY crude sync method and requires starting the two tape machines at exactly the same time.
AC capstan motor machines use the 50 hz (60 hz in the US) frequency from the AC mains to derive a speed reference.
By having machine #2 follow the speed reference recorded on machine #1 any speed variance on machine #1 would cause machine #2 to follow.
This only locks the capstan motors (roughly) and doesn't sync the two machines in time.
You have to manually get the two machines starting at the same time in order for the tracks to be in sync. The 50 hz "pilot tone" (sort of) only keeps the machines in sync after they start together.

THIRD: This system only required one track of the three available on the MASTER MACHINE (machine #1)
Machine #2 had all four tracks available.

Most of Sgt. Peppers was rcecorded and created by bouncing from 4 track machine to 4 track machine. Like I already said, the Studer J-37s they were using were 1" 4-track decks and had a fairly low noise floor.
This facilitated a lot more bouncing than you can successfully get with evn 1/2" 4-track.
You can maybe expect to get one more generation than 1/2" 4-track, possibly two more than 1/4" 4-track and infinitely more than cassette 4-track IF you have a 1" 4-track. They are VERY, VERY rare.

With 1/4" machines (and cassettes) you have significant low frequency build-up due to the head bump at speeds like 15 IPS or lower.

In the US studios in LA were already recording to 4-track and bouncing to 8-track at least a year or two prior to Sgt. Peppers (see The Beach Boys "Pet Sounds.")
Pet Sounds is a good example because they recorded the band to 1/2" 4-track.
Most of what you hear of the band on the record was cut live.
I am not 100% certain of the track assignments (it's available) but there were only one or two over-dubs.
The backing track (the band) was recorded as a mono mix to either another 1/2" 4-track or to a 1" 8-track.
BTW... this was done about two years before The Beatles recorded Sgt. Peppers.

[T.V. Eye]

Originally Posted by kevin nowhow

...
You mean record a source on tape while getting it out & recording the outcome back on the DAW?

Exactly. Of cause your tapemachine need´s 3 heads for that. I don´t know the English term for that 3rd head - in German it´s called "Hinterbandkontrolle" - the one you can monitor with what´s recorded on tape. Not all consumer tapemachines got that, some only have a play and record head, and than you can only monitor the input while recording, but your multitrack recorder should have it.

[SuperElectric]

Silly question: What would be the advisable input recording level for a 4-track? I'm recording on a tascam 424 mkII.

[zlaya]

So far the songs that have been posted sound like shit...they sound like cassette tape. Cassette tape does not equal "tape sound" that people refer to. I see no aspect where its better than digital. I would maybe use that sound on an individual instrument, but not on a whole mix.

[Rob Coates]

Originally Posted by T.V. Eye

Exactly. Of cause your tapemachine need´s 3 heads for that. I don´t know the English term for that 3rd head - in German it´s called "Hinterbandkontrolle" - the one you can monitor with what´s recorded on tape. Not all consumer tapemachines got that, some only have a play and record head, and than you can only monitor the input while recording, but your multitrack recorder should have it.

It's called the "repro" head over here, and more and more I'm thinking ultimately this is the best way to incorporate tape with a DAW. Tracks can be recorded on your DAW (in my case an Alesis HD24XR) as usual and when tracking is finished, bounce all of the tracks 2 at a time or 4 at a time if you have a 4 track, and back to DAW from the repro head in real time.

[FFTT]

Originally Posted by zlaya

So far the songs that have been posted sound like shit...they sound like cassette tape. Cassette tape does not equal "tape sound" that people refer to. I see no aspect where its better than digital. I would maybe use that sound on an individual instrument, but not on a whole mix.

Put up or shut up.

Let's hear some of your amazing work on a self produced solo project
in less than ideal recording conditions.

[zlaya]

Originally Posted by FFTT

Put up or shut up.

Let's hear some of your amazing work on a self produced solo project
in less than ideal recording conditions.

...I think you're missing the point here buddy. No need to get angry. I have no recordings I made on cassette tape as I began recording while computers existed, and had no need to record to tape.

If we were in 1990 I would not knock these recordings. In 2012, cheap, readily available equipment can be used to make recording of much better quality than what I have heard people post here.

If you're recording to a cassette tape for a creative and technical challenge that is fine and I encourage it.. But don't go about saying "sounds much better than digital". That's not the analog/tape that people talk about when they say it sounds better than digital.

A 2013 Ford Mustang is better in every way than a 1967 Ford Mustang. Given the choice, I would go for the '67. I like the '67 more, but I don't go around like a dickwad saying its a better car than the 2013.

[trumq]

Originally Posted by LimpyLoo

How does wow "build up" when bouncing internally?

We were bouncing from one deck to another, not internally.

[kevin nowhow]

Originally Posted by SuperElectric

Silly question: What would be the advisable input recording level for a 4-track? I'm recording on a tascam 424 mkII.

All you need to do is match your machine's input stage to the transducer/instrument you are using(microphone,guitar,keyboard,whatever) & pay attention to the meters while you trim or add gain.That is if you don't want to go into 'red' territory.If you want that just push it.

If you are talking about the bias settings of the tape, i can't be of much help.Somehow i don't think it's something you should really stretch your brain for though...

[andsonic]

Band rhythm bed live & in stereo on 2 tracks. Solos, bkg vocals, & lead vocals on the other two.
Rehearse, rehearse, rehearse.
Be ready to be creative with overdub management on those 2 tracks.
...and you will rediscover all the Beatles tricks for great sound (like sending all the bkg vocals through one compressor & then to tape).

Your mixing chops will get better mixing a band live in stereo.

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz App

[T.V. Eye]

Originally Posted by Rob Coates

It's called the "repro" head over here, and more and more I'm thinking ultimately this is the best way to incorporate tape with a DAW. Tracks can be recorded on your DAW (in my case an Alesis HD24XR) as usual and when tracking is finished, bounce all of the tracks 2 at a time or 4 at a time if you have a 4 track, and back to DAW from the repro head in real time.

Oh thanks, I hope I´ll remember that in the future.

And yes, to me that´s the best and cheapest way to get tape-sound, and it´s the reason I got me an old tube revox 2-track (still needs to get overhauled). 2-tracks are not that expensive, an 1/2" tape is quite cheap. I guess I´ll not use it on every track/every session, but more as a "vintage-effect" on particular tracks, cause this old machine only runs at 7.5ips, and will be overkill on tracks that should stay more clean, transparent, "airy".
But with a "cleaner" machine than can run at 15ips or 30ips you can simulate a full multitrack quite well I guess.

[joeq]

Originally Posted by Rob Coates

It's called the "repro" head over here,

I think I am going to start going around calling it "Hinterbandkontrolle"

much more fun than "repro"

and more and more I'm thinking ultimately this is the best way to incorporate tape with a DAW. Tracks can be recorded on your DAW (in my case an Alesis HD24XR) as usual and when tracking is finished, bounce all of the tracks 2 at a time or 4 at a time if you have a 4 track, and back to DAW from the repro head in real time.

the thing is you no longer need a 4 track to do this
you could do it with a stereo or mono deck
(as long as that deck has a "Hinterbandkontrolle"! )

nor do you have to STOP at 4 tracks or 8 or 16

once you start tapeifying your tracks into your DAW, your tape deck is just an 'effect' you are running your tracks through.

you CAN have has many tracks as you want

good news if you just want the tape sound

but so many here are stressing the "Mojo" of the "limitations"!
you would have to actually exercise Self Control to keep your track count down, and let's face it, if you had Self Control, well you wouldn't need a 4-track tape deck to create arbitrary "limitations"!

[songwoman]

Tascam 1/4" 4-tracks are great.


- Record guides/click on track 4
- Record drums on three tracks:

Track 3 Kick
Track 2 OH/Sn
Track 1 OH/room

Bounce 1,2,3 onto track 4 (delete guides)
Watch level of kick bouncing into adjacent track. Use kick for adjacent track because it has less high frequency and is less likely to feedback.

If you don't have a desk, do the bounce through the mono headphone with the track selector!

Now you've got three tracks spare.

[drezz]

So funny reading this thread and the dumb ass comments left by doubters of the results of tracking to limited tracks.
Here's my opinion:
It doesnt get any better than tracking very good musicians who can really play straight to 2 track tape.
Spontanaity, sonically and whoa, what a concise glued together result when you get it right. Of course this will not be applicable for all styles of music, but if it is, it doesnt get any better......honestly!
Take time setting up, get the sound right in the room and hit record. Its the dogs boll**cks!
Scuse my french, but theres no other way to put it really!
Limitations bring an extra dimension to the proceedings. Ironic but true. It takes skill and confidence but its just glorious when its done right! Natural and exuberant!
Loads of fun too!

[andsonic]

Originally Posted by drezz

So funny reading this thread and the dumb ass comments left by doubters of the results of tracking to limited tracks.
Here's my opinion:
It doesnt get any better than tracking very good musicians who can really play straight to 2 track tape.
Spontanaity, sonically and whoa, what a concise glued together result when you get it right. Of course this will not be applicable for all styles of music, but if it is, it doesnt get any better......honestly!
Take time setting up, get the sound right in the room and hit record. Its the dogs boll**cks!
Scuse my french, but theres no other way to put it really!
Limitations bring an extra dimension to the proceedings. Ironic but true. It takes skill and confidence but its just glorious when its done right! Natural and exuberant!
Loads of fun too!

Yeah!
Just what I posted earlier. Cutting it live is a great experience. I started out doing things that way, and the experience is great.
One of my all time favorite sessions was a 6 piece, live to DAT.

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz App

[Rob Coates]

Originally Posted by drezz

So funny reading this thread and the dumb ass comments left by doubters of the results of tracking to limited tracks.
Here's my opinion:
It doesnt get any better than tracking very good musicians who can really play straight to 2 track tape.
Spontanaity, sonically and whoa, what a concise glued together result when you get it right. Of course this will not be applicable for all styles of music, but if it is, it doesnt get any better......honestly!
Take time setting up, get the sound right in the room and hit record. Its the dogs boll**cks!
Scuse my french, but theres no other way to put it really!
Limitations bring an extra dimension to the proceedings. Ironic but true. It takes skill and confidence but its just glorious when its done right! Natural and exuberant!
Loads of fun too!

I've been planning on doing just that with a bluegrass band next month. All the instrumental tracks live to 2 track tape, then vocals. Never done it before. Should be fun and a real challenge.

[kevin nowhow]

Originally Posted by joeq

I think I am going to start going around calling it "Hinterbandkontrolle"

much more fun than "repro"

I think i'll be using that as well!

Originally Posted by joeq

but so many here are stressing the "Mojo" of the "limitations"!
you would have to actually exercise Self Control to keep your track count down, and let's face it, if you had Self Control, well you wouldn't need a 4-track tape deck to create arbitrary "limitations"!

Can't really argue with that.

The reason i want to use the 4-track is not so much for its limitations.It's the experience it will provide, something out of the ordinary & the fact that i don't wanna sell it so i might as well use it.

[kevin nowhow]

Originally Posted by songwoman

Watch level of kick bouncing into adjacent track. Use kick for adjacent track because it has less high frequency and is less likely to feedback.

I think i lost you on this one...

[joeq]

Originally Posted by kevin nowhow

The reason i want to use the 4-track is not so much for its limitations.It's the experience it will provide, something out of the ordinary

but the limitations ARE the experience

don't get me wrong- I once had a 4-track (reel) tape deck as my ONLY recording device. Been there, done that, never going back. I personally have ZERO nostalgia for the format, the hiss, the wow, the flutter. ZERO nostalgia for the workflow, the bouncing, the lack of ease of editing and the supposed benefits of 'greater demands' on the players.


But if you just use it as a front-end effect for tracks going in to your DAW, you are not getting the "experience" of recording 4-track, for whatever that is worth.

[kevin nowhow]

Originally Posted by joeq

don't get me wrong- I once had a 4-track (reel) tape deck as my ONLY recording device. Been there, done that, never going back. I personally have ZERO nostalgia for the format, the hiss, the wow, the flutter. ZERO nostalgia for the workflow, the bouncing, the lack of editing and the supposed benefits of 'greater demands' on the players.


But if you just use it as a front-end effect for tracks going in to your DAW, you are not getting the "experience" of recording 4-track, for whatever that is worth.

Even though i haven't been in your shoes i'm more than sure that i WON'T stick to cassette/tape.I'm too spoiled with all the digital convenience & i have no guilt whatsoever for feeling this way.In fact i love digital.

On the other hand, i grew up in the 80's/90's listening to cassettes in walkmans & even though i bought cd versions of most of those records i still listen to the cassette versions from time to time.They are not better-sounding but there's something about them that i like.

And you are right, getting tracks in & out of the machine into a DAW is NOT the old-school way.It's probably the approach i'll be using(this or just grouping things in Cubase, then bouncing to the 4-track) but with all this advice here by you guys i think i'll be going old-school with an EBM project of mine.It's gonna be just me so i'll have the freedom to test this way of recording without the responsibility of messing up other people's performances or time.

[FFTT]

I've even heard of guys who could not afford ADAT's tracking and bouncing to VCR just to get extra space on tape.
Never tried it , but it's an interesting idea.

[rack gear]

how I used to do it... OG style ya'll...

----

Track 1 - Click from Drum Machine (TR505)

Track 2 - Mic One Drums Snare

Track 3 - Mic Two Drums Bass Drum

Track 4 - Mic Three Drums Room/Overhead

----

Bounce Tracks 2, 3, 4 into Track 1 (Formerly Click)

----

Track 1 - Drums Bounced From Above

Track 2 - Bass Guitar

Track 3 - Rhythm Guitar

Track 4 - Lead Guitar

----

Bounce Tracks 1, 2, 3, 4 to Stereo Mix (VHS Hi-Fi)

----

Track 1 - Stereo Mix L

Track 2 - Stereo Mix R

Track 3 - Keys or BG Vox

Track 4 - Lead Vox

----

Bounce Tracks 1,2,3,4 to Stereo Mix (VHS Hi-Fi)

----

Done.

[Rob Coates]

Originally Posted by rack gear

how I used to do it... OG style ya'll...

----

Track 1 - Click from Drum Machine (TR505)

Track 2 - Mic One Drums Snare

Track 3 - Mic Two Drums Bass Drum

Track 4 - Mic Three Drums Room/Overhead

----

Bounce Tracks 2, 3, 4 into Track 1 (Formerly Click)

----

Track 1 - Drums Bounced From Above

Track 2 - Bass Guitar

Track 3 - Rhythm Guitar

Track 4 - Lead Guitar

----

Bounce Tracks 1, 2, 3, 4 to Stereo Mix (VHS Hi-Fi)

----

Track 1 - Stereo Mix L

Track 2 - Stereo Mix R

Track 3 - Keys or BG Vox

Track 4 - Lead Vox

----

Bounce Tracks 1,2,3,4 to Stereo Mix (VHS Hi-Fi)

----

Done.

But how do you start a song with just drums? Was the whole rhythm section playing and just the drums were recorded? If initially, the drummer was drumming to nothing but the tune in his head, how did you make that work?

[kevin nowhow]

Originally Posted by Rob Coates

But how do you start a song with just drums? Was the whole rhythm section playing and just the drums were recorded? If initially, the drummer was drumming to nothing but the tune in his head, how did you make that work?

A click track was used courtesy of his TR-505.If a drummer knows his parts inside-out(countless rehearsals), he can track his instrument down after max a coupla takes.

[Arny]

Originally Posted by fnninns

Most of Sgt. Peppers was rcecorded and created by bouncing from 4 track machine to 4 track machine. Like I already said, the Studer J-37s they were using were 1" 4-track decks and had a fairly low noise floor.
This facilitated a lot more bouncing than you can successfully get with evn 1/2" 4-track.

The backing track (the band) was recorded as a mono mix to either another 1/2" 4-track or to a 1" 8-track.
BTW... this was done about two years before The Beatles recorded Sgt. Peppers.

I have a complete set of Studer C37 4Track X 1" as used on the Sgt Pepper sessions, they are for sale and are complete with their screening cans ready to fit. condition is "As New".

Please do not PM me please write to me at tony@arnys-shack.com

Best Regards

Tony

[Depressionman]

I wasn't satisfied with any of my recordings unless I had minimum of 8 tracks.
Most important was to have drums recorded in stereo.Mono was so unnatural to me.

[Granny Gremlin]

My recomendation for a full rock type band tracked live without bouncing:

trk 1) drums (either 1 mic on the whole kit or mixdown from a submixer)

trks 2 + 3) stereo guitar/bass/keyboard mix - if there's more than 2 you may need another submixer (or seperate bus on the same mixer - since this is stereo, use the main mix/2 bus for this and an alt bus or aux send for the mono drum mix)

trk 4) vocal(s) (again if more than 1 vocalist, including backups, then may need a submixer.... or just use a fig 8 mic, with the main vocalist closer to the front side than the backup person is to the back.

I never liked bouncing tracks on 4 tracks because I find it starts sounding mushy when those stack up, but if you keep it to just one bounce before mixdown and the deck is in good shape (cleaned and demagged heads etc) then it should be fine.

In that case (and if you don't want to track it all live off the floor) I would record stereo drums on 1/2 and stereo rythmn instruments (guitar/bass/keys as above) on 3/4, then bounce that down to a stereo mix on 2 channels and use the remaining 2 to overdub vox and/or any lead/solo instrument.

I wasn't satisfied with any of my recordings unless I had minimum of 8 tracks.
Most important was to have drums recorded in stereo.Mono was so unnatural to me.

I used to feel this way, but then, long after I moved on to DAWs from tape, I did a bit of a spontaneous project on a cassette 4 track (that's what was laying around the jam room). It turned out great. Mono drums can work if you don't try to do it (mic it up etc) like you would if you are gonna have a stereo drum bus. So many classic records sound great with mono drums. Also, you can record them stereo and then bounce things to make room.

Quote:

A click track was used courtesy of his TR-505.If a drummer knows his parts inside-out(countless rehearsals), he can track his instrument down after max a coupla takes.

I hate putting down drums first. Makes no sense to me (as a drummer and as a producer/engineer). I like to either do the rhythm section all at once or start with rythm guitar or bass to a click (if the guitard is good enough timing wise; I am but I've encountered players who, though technically better than me, couldn't do it. I think it's a matter of practise/exposure, but many just refuse and there's no helping that) or just put down a basic (throwaway/bed) drum track (or drum machine) first and build from there. Then put the final drums down last after the vox (that way the drums can lock in with the bass and play off the vocals for the fills - you also tend to get a much better performance from drummers generally this way). .... then again, if your drummer is a Ringo, playing not much more than a basic 4/4 rock beat, then this may not apply; I tend to work with more ambitious drummers.