Tape Tracking

[soupking]

Hi everybody,

I'm getting my 'studio' asembled to record. It's taking forever. Actually I should be impressed how far I've gotten in 6 months. However, in the meantime while the 'control room' is getting built I'm learning as much as I can about depth, gates, miking, bouncing, etc.

I'm going to be recording to tape. I've never done this before. I'm used to Cubase, so I was wondering how people have typically gone about it. Like, in a non-linear setting, you would just stack and delete. However with tape, it's essential to eventually get everything tracked together at one spot. You just can't drag it over on the timeline. This also goes against the issue of reusing tape. ??

So how would one attack recording on tape? (that is exlcuding bussing etc.)

Or maybe in better words, what's the most efficient way at the approach?

[7 Hz]

It's quite funny you coming at this from your direction... I almost feel the same about software audio when I see people using HOW MANY TRACKS / CHANNELS?

First, how many tape tracks? 8? 16? 24?

Anyway you cut it, what you are doing is recording subsets of the final thing. Depending on the track and arangement, it can be anything. Easiest and best is one track per 'instrument'. Depending on how many tracks, you get to divide up drums / bass / vocals / guitar / keys etc.

It is limited, and depends on getting the part right all the way through. Live dropins rule.

[soupking]

I'm mostly curious how people do takes?

Are there takes? Would it be possible to do takes of some kind and then resynch them using click or something?

I find it hard to believe that the entire history of tape was done in one take you know?

[stevep]

Originally Posted by soupking

I'm mostly curious how people do takes?

Are there takes? Would it be possible to do takes of some kind and then resynch them using click or something?

I find it hard to believe that the entire history of tape was done in one take you know?

This is the great thing about working with tape machines,.....

All you can do is Punch in...... Punch out and you will need some practice to get used to the delay of your machine

And as far as editing, get a razorblade..... Cut the intro from take 1... Paste to take 2


As far as takes, Sure .. you can do as many takes as you want
buy lots of tape ,


And the best part ....... No Undo

I find it hard to believe that the entire history of tape was done in one take you know

Most awesome recordings are first takes.......

Are there takes? Would it be possible to do takes of some kind and then resynch them using click or something?

Re sync to what ?



What kind of machine do you have ?

[Flymax]

You can generate a click from your daw and print it to tape along with the takes.
Then if you're dumping the audio into digital you can piece together different sections.
The click wont be on the grid anymore because the tape machine speed changes a tiny bit over the course of the song. I've been making a new grid in PT with beat detective.

Have fun..

[Dan]

Maybe I'm misreading, but it seems like the biggest idea you're missing is that takes are done in a linear fashion. i.e. one after the other on the tape. So, if it's a 3 min song, take one starts at 1:00, take 2 starts at 4:10, and so on. If you are talking about overdub takes, they are on multiple tracks, then compiled to one track. If you're concerned about tape usage, check out Bruce Swedien's "Accusonic Recording Process"
...Or you could dump from tape to your DAW early on and move on from there.

[stellar]

I think maybe that you are missing the point that you can record on each track independently at any time? so say you fill 1 and 2 with drums. then you can go back and do bass on track 3. etc. if the bass player fudges a note you do what is called a 'punch in' where by you only arm the track for recording for that one instant you are trying to fix. I've done it on my own vocals simply by hitting the track arm button, screaming for a second, then hitting the button again, very quickly in between pauses. many decks also have a foot pedal or a remote control. To really appreciate your new tape machine, I recommend trying to not bounce at first, no matter how many tracks you have to work with. I used to use a 16-track and now recently I am using a 4-track. So the drums are submixed to one track, and there is only one vocal track, etc. It opens your mind to what is possible. I don't think I will ever need 16 tracks again, but I think an eighter is in my future.

[soupking]

I'm using a TASCAM 38, 1/2" 8-track.

I guess I'll just write over parts until I'm used to the machine.

The idea of splicing tape sounds like a quick way for me to screw up my work. 8 different tracks within a 1/2" is pretty damn tedious. It's not like I'm dealing with 2" tape.

[stevep]

Originally Posted by soupking

I'm using a TASCAM 38, 1/2" 8-track.

I guess I'll just write over parts until I'm used to the machine.

The idea of splicing tape sounds like a quick way for me to screw up my work. 8 different tracks within a 1/2" is pretty damn tedious. It's not like I'm dealing with 2" tape.

You dont actually cut the tracks in a linear way ,.....

each track seprate..... (but believe me we tried to figure out a way..)

all the tracks are cut at the same time, so cutting 1/4" is the same as 2"


The edits are across the tape .....you cut all the tracks at the same point then splice that piece to the next piece


I had one of those machines, they could be a bit noisy if you didn't keep the levels right , But a good machine and i recorded lots of great songs with the one i had ,. I always wanted the DBX for it,... That would have fixed the noise problem



Have fun

[soupking]

You dont actually cut the tracks in a linear way ,.....

each track seprate..... (but believe me we tried to figure out a way..)

all the tracks are cut at the same time, so cutting 1/4" is the same as 2"


The edits are across the tape .....you cut all the tracks at the same point then splice that piece to the next piece

Okay, so I'm cutting completely across the tape regardless?

So how to I put it all back together again?

Sorry, if it's an inane question, it's just I've never spliced tape before.

Thanks!

[theremin]

Originally Posted by soupking

Okay, so I'm cutting completely across the tape regardless?

So how to I put it all back together again?

Sorry, if it's an inane question, it's just I've never spliced tape before.

Thanks!

with tape :P the adhesive kind

and doing takes "i think you mean overdubs when someone screws up their part" , you just arm the one track you want to over dub and punch in when it hits the measure you want to redo on that track and punch out when you want to stop.

sry if you already get that part.

on tape it isnt possible to do multiple "takes" of the same part unless you have free tracks to record on. otherwise you will be doing overdubbing. most likely no "takes" with only 8 tracks

S!

[soupking]

Okay, for some reason I think I am starting to get it.

1. Rehearse the hell out of the piece until you have it concrete.

2. Do one take that will be the only take as the intended piece.

3. Then if there's a goof, do over punch in/out 'overdubs' in place of that goof.

That's how tracking to tape is/has been typically done, correct?

[beachhunt]

Originally Posted by soupking

Okay, for some reason I think I am starting to get it.

1. Rehearse the hell out of the piece until you have it concrete.

2. Do one take that will be the only take as the intended piece.

3. Then if there's a goof, do over punch in/out 'overdubs' in place of that goof.

That's how tracking to tape is/has been typically done, correct?

Don't forget to save the "goofs" so you can release them to your rabid fans in 20-30 years. thumbsup

[skillzburn]

what would be a good price for an otari mx70 8 fh 1" 8 track tape machine. any input please, thanks

M

[sedohr]

Originally Posted by skillzburn

what would be a good price for an otari mx70 8 fh 1" 8 track tape machine. any input please, thanks

M

Skillzburn

Rather than hijack this year old thread, you might want to start your own..

BTW Soupking, how did it go with the tape? Are you still using it ? Is it the best thing that ever happened to you ?

Kalli

[FossilTooth]

Originally Posted by soupking

...in the meantime while the 'control room' is getting built I'm learning as much as I can about depth, gates, miking, bouncing, etc.

I'm going to be recording to tape. I've never done this before.

I hope this doesn't come across the wrong way, but, how have you been learning about these things without actually recording and mixing?

Reading doesn't count.

I hope you've been working on your old system continuously while waiting for your new room to be completed. Otherwise you might find that you haven't actually learned a thing in the interim.

New gear is great and all, but it's in your best interest to make music now using you currently available tools.

If you have been recording all along, please ignore this post.

[Ciozzi]

Never tracked to tape but I was wondering if it would be a bad idea to record everything to digital and then print every single track to tape. Wouldn't it be the same ?

[Empire Prod]

Originally Posted by Ciozzi

Never tracked to tape but I was wondering if it would be a bad idea to record everything to digital and then print every single track to tape. Wouldn't it be the same ?

Some people feel that there is already a certain amount of loss at that point. I don't know if I agree that the difference in sound is due to loss, but I do agree that it sounds different than if you track straight to tape.

[mikael_bonk]

Thanks for a great thread guys!

Lots of great tape-tricks without the endless analouge vs. digital debate

I'm planning to get into the world of tape during 2008, anybody got any tips on books or sites where i could read up on tracking to tape and editing tape ??

[Ciozzi]

I'm planning to get into the world of tape too... maybe in a year or two when I'll have the money to upgrade my system.

Some people feel that there is already a certain amount of loss at that point. I don't know if I agree that the difference in sound is due to loss, but I do agree that it sounds different than if you track straight to tape

This sounds weird to me. Digital recorders (or DAW) are not supposed "lose" anything especially when coupled with hi-end converters, that's the strength of the digital world, transparency. How can this affect the tape recorder in a noticable way ? Am I missing a step in my reasoning?