View Single Post
Old 1st September 2018
  #23
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by xamatsni View Post
Quote:
I'm just saying that I don't think you've fully thought through the workflow or tried working this way. I've used a 388 together with a DAW and learned that what's fun about tape is just using tape on its own.
I disagree whole heartedly. I have worked with tape and what's fun about it to most everyone I have ever known is that IT SOUNDS AMAZING!!! I have thought through the workflow and have used synced machines before.


Quote:
Once you dump the tracks to the computer, it makes more sense just to stay in the computer.
You don't appear to be following my thoughts. I AGREE. The synced machine lets you record to tape to begin with, then control and edit everything on your daw. You get the best of both worlds. You could also record your vst instruments over to the tape and then back to the daw, so everything would be able to benefit from the great sound of tape. The sound and joy of this would be obvious and the machines would sell by the thousands.

Quote:
It's not worth erasing the first 8 tracks and messing with sync just to record a few overdubs that you could easily just record into the computer.
We are talking 4 tracks, not 8. And once they are on the computer you no longer need them on the tape. You record over them, it's that simple. The sound of tape is EASILY worth that.



Quote:
If you want a hybrid workflow, it makes more sense to track and edit on the computer and then dump tracks out to tape.
The machine I am dreaming of could send compyer tracks, ones you record or send EZ drummer tracks or vst instruments to tape and then move them back to the daw for editing. Everything gets the sound of tape if you want it, or just the few you want.

Quote:
Every computer track doesn't necessarily need its own tape track either. If you have 8 tracks of tape you can just stem out submixes to tape.
And that's fine. That would be an ability of the machine, no problem. How does this argue against my idea of this machine? This machine would do all this through a VST type interface. Move stems, tracks from and to the tape, as many as your daw can handle. You can record directly to the computer and then move to tape or record direct to tape, your choice. You would have a couple channels to record to because this machine could do remote recording. BUT, you could also just forego that and have nothing but tape tracks completely daw dependant. Not even any rewind buttons or play buttons, the entire machine controlled through a vst tye interface.

Quote:
Anyway, recording 4 tracks at a time and then stopping to dump them to the computer before you can continue sounds like a nightmare workflow to me.
If a song is 3 minutes you think 3 minutes every 4 tracks is a nightmare and NOT WORTH a beautiful tape sound, WHAT? I already listen to my mixes 50 frickin times just toying with mixes, it wouldn't bother me a bit waiting 3 minutes while 4 tracks records over to the daw, 12 tracks takes 9 minutes, and that's NOT worth the beauty of quarter inch tape sound? Sorry, but it would be worth it to me and everyone in to recording that I know.

Ever listen to guys like Art Feynman (Luke Temple) who was in a recent Tape Op article? Here's a couple links. This guy thinks it's such a nightmare he chooses to use a Tascam cassette 4 track because he loves the sound of even cassette tape.
YouTube
YouTube

He doesn't even have sync and is still willing to run 4 tracks over to daw and then back out to tape to keep recording.

The machine I am dreaming of would of course have better quality by far and complete and easy sync. He could have heavenly tape sound and complete ease of daw control.

Quote:
I get your dream vision here but you have to accept that nobody is going to make it.
I don't believe you can say that at all. You know no such thing. These things have to be talked about and the love for tape sound is as strong as ever. As I said, look at those prices for these ancient old 4 tracks. People clearly still love tape.


Quote:
So if this is really your dream, why not save up that $700 and buy a 1/4" 2 track right now? It's an even better format than what you're proposing. If you're willing to bounce 4 tracks at a time, 2 tracks isn't that much more hassle. Or if you're fine with the 1/4" 8 track sound of the 388 you could probably pick up something like a Fostex within your budget.
2 track would be double the waiting, still worth it but 4 tracks would be preferrable. 4 tracks on 1/4 inch would be wonderful qualiity.


Quote:
If you get a machine that lets you monitor the repro head, you can just loop it back into the computer in realtime. The tracks will be delayed a little bit from the computer tracks, but you can either slide them back where they belong, or if you're transferring all of your tracks this way, just leave it and they'll all line up when you're done. Even better, just bounce your final mix to the 2 track and you'll get the tape sound with the least amount of hassle.
My dream machine would be the least amount of hassle. Bouncing whole mixes somehow isn't the same as individual tracks. A Bass guitar pushes that tape and doesn't get the same full effect when it is only part of an overall mix. But this new machine would of course still be capable of doing mixdown.

The easy sync would be the real heart of control. The replaceable head cartridges would assure a very long life and new cassette design would fit modern recordists. Again, once the first songs were out with 388 or better quality sound that would be all she wrote, these things would sell by the thousands and thousands.