The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Analog Printing
Old 16th May 2019
  #31
Gotcha. That’s why the any rides or muted or anything live while printing would be off. So on The 8 track do you think it’s a good to use repro just for mixing?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #32
Gear Guru
 
Drumsound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie Mumbles View Post
Gotcha. That’s why the any rides or muted or anything live while printing would be off. So on The 8 track do you think it’s a good to use repro just for mixing?
YES! That's what its for. Often repro is higher fidelity than sync.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumsound View Post
YES! That's what its for. Often repro is higher fidelity than sync.
Yeah that what I’ve always done and read too. Plus you distribute the wear time on the heads. One for recording and the other for mixing. Tho I hadn’t heard that repro can have better fidelity tho that would make sense from a manufacturers standpoint (and practical use too in that the repro head is designed just for that function)
Old 4 weeks ago
  #34
Gear Guru
 
Drumsound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie Mumbles View Post
Yeah that what I’ve always done and read too. Plus you distribute the wear time on the heads. One for recording and the other for mixing. Tho I hadn’t heard that repro can have better fidelity tho that would make sense from a manufacturers standpoint (and practical use too in that the repro head is designed just for that function)
You won't really negate head wear, because the tape is still being run across all three heads. Lifters for fast wind do minimize head wear though. It depends a bit on the machine how different the fidelity in sync and repro are.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumsound View Post
You won't really negate head wear, because the tape is still being run across all three heads. Lifters for fast wind do minimize head wear though. It depends a bit on the machine how different the fidelity in sync and repro are.
Thanks for that. That makes sense too. It’s really nice to get back into tape for me. It’s been way too long. 2003 basically. Tho I’ve never stopped using my Portastudio...even just as a two track for remote jammings/writing. I use a separate 4 channel board with phantom and the SDC’s come out really nice on cassette. Balances out the lo fi With a little “cleanness”. Hit it hot and it sounds amazing. I did some studio stuff on there a few times, and once ran my LV through the CL1A, but disengaged it as it was too much, but even just running it through there then to cassette it was one of My favorite recordings of my voice sounded. (Ac Gtr was on track 2) These Tascsms are a big upgrade from that porta lol. Tho The porta will always have its function
Old 3 weeks ago
  #36
I have a different question for you guys regarding different analog printing. (Actually track width) Sometimes I record myself with just acoustic and vocal. No overdubs. 2 tracks. Live. Gtr track one. Vocal track 2. Do you think it’s would be best to just record normally (record to 8x then mix to 2x) then dump into computer to master then release. OR, record to 2x (as it’s 1/8th” per track) and mix either to the 8x or mix right into the computer. (Ideally get another 2x I know but the funds could be spent in other areas). The quality, in theory (as well as in practice), is the 2x should sound 2x better than the 8x (One uses 1/8” per track the other 1/16” per track). Id like to think I am again not over thinking things, I also don’t want to loose a generation if I don’t have to, but it would only be one generation if I print to the 8x. These albums I don’t do much of, but i am getting the singer/songwriter bug more....could be just having Bandmates for 30+ Years too. (I am gonna do some experimental prints just to see the quality,8x printing vs the computer, but I won’t be doing an album like this for at least year because of other projects) Thanks for any advice.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #37
Lives for gear
 
Brian M. Boykin's Avatar
Unless the 8 track imparts some sonic signature you like or the process of mixing through a console twice adds some magic, less generations is usually preferred. Also, the wider track width of the 2 track should yield a higher dynamic range, better S/N, and better overall Sonics. It’s why 16 tracks on 2” is preferred over 24 tracks on 2” unless you need the track count. Try it both ways and see for yourself. What’s the right way is the best sounding way.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jules View Post
From the thread Standad Approach to EQing Tape on 10th Apr 2008

In an attempt to get optimum levels and pre tape eq settings, and to gauge 'tape saturation levels' try this...

Have the musician(s to) play without headphones, (and not in the control room with you) then hit record, but with the recorder into repro mode. (not the usual sync mode)

There will be a very big time lag to the audio coming out of the recorder as it plays back from the record head instead of the usual sync head. (you might not be able to do this with all tape machines, but most 2 machines will allow this..)

in this mode you can

1) Push levels to tape to find the 'sweet spot' for saturation

2) EQ signals going in so they come off the tape machine sounding the way you want then to sound.

3) Give band members a laugh.. (for some reason ALL musicians find it totally HILARIOUS to watch their drummers arms flailing about out of time with the playback audio..)

I used to use this technique in studios with worn tape heads / dodgey tape machines..Especially with drum kits / basic tracking because at least I knew what I would be getting on playback..

Of course there is a short time lag in your eq actions and your fader movements due to using the repro head but once you get used to it, you are good to go,

Recommended.. seriously..

(warning - obviously you are running in record to get the sounds set up, so you need a blank reel to work on, do not go rolling into the next song in record! Cause you will wipe sh!t out!)
[Posted using Post Recycler]
Old 3 weeks ago
  #39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian M. Boykin View Post
Unless the 8 track imparts some sonic signature you like or the process of mixing through a console twice adds some magic, less generations is usually preferred. Also, the wider track width of the 2 track should yield a higher dynamic range, better S/N, and better overall Sonics. It’s why 16 tracks on 2” is preferred over 24 tracks on 2” unless you need the track count. Try it both ways and see for yourself. What’s the right way is the best sounding way.
That’s what I am thinking. If I am gonna cut an album like this (singer songwriter 2 mics only) I am thinking just using the two track. Then mix to the computer. I do think the 8x would just get in the way at that point and printing to the computer should allow me to retain all the good Sonics I’ll get of off the 2x. I am interested in hearing my voice and guitar tracked to 1/8” track width. Even the 2” Otari 90 I used in the 90s didn’t have that width, tho that’s a much better deck of course (I never used 16 track 2” or any variation like 8x 1”)
Old 3 weeks ago
  #40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jules View Post
[Posted using Post Recycler]
yes this is great advice. This is what “Drumsound” was saying too in regards to printing. Check your mix off of the repro head although if you print it that way, any manual rides and mutes would be off. This is really good advice. I want to hear what I am laying down. That’s the whole point. Proper monitoring. Thats how we were trained. That’s why I started this thread cause I was a little concerned about a finely tuned mix getting bumped a little in the lows and smoothed out highs. (Tho this was the norm for decades) But either if I am printing or tracking this will work. Put it in repro (no cans for them) and find that saturation I like. “Sweet spot” and hear the exact EQ your gonna lay down. I am grateful for the 2x as now I can push my consoles 2 mix a little more, and get that colour, THEN adjuxt the levels on the 2x track accordingly (keeping the colour off the board). Up until this 2x I would print into the computer and I use the master fader for level. But even adjusting this level a few dB changes the colour off the board. Haven’t bought the tape yet as I am still in a project fully started in PT, but in the next 2 months I will be starting a full analog project. (At least recording and mixing wise) thanks for the reply.....Good warning too. Just like the steely dan story with the assistant aligning the record heads with no leader and wiping a minute or so of drum tracks lol.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
OldeWorldSoundCo / Newbie Audio Engineering + Production Question Zone
1
midnightsun / So Much Gear, So Little Time
0
chikkenguy / So Much Gear, So Little Time
9

Forum Jump
Forum Jump