Planning some Tape work

danjokill

Ok, so i have a project and I am planning on using tape. Recording Drums.
The plan on the signal chain from mic to tape is as follows
MIC > PREAMP > DESK (take a B mix here for drummer) > COMPRESSOR> TAPE MACHINE
EQ at Mix stage and just record a signal which has passed through the above.
Or Should I forget about the compressor and let the tape do the compression naturally (but levels to tape would naturally have to be lower so as not to have it too hot) and just record a preamped signal which can be manupliated later.

Any advice?

teamdresch

If you're 100% sure that the compressed sound is what you want, then go for it.
What's the tape machine?

PaulBrewer

danjokill wrote: »

Ok, so i have a project and I am planning on using tape. Recording Drums.
The plan on the signal chain from mic to tape is as follows
MIC > PREAMP > DESK (take a B mix here for drummer) > COMPRESSOR> TAPE MACHINE
EQ at Mix stage and just record a signal which has passed through the above.
Or Should I forget about the compressor and let the tape do the compression naturally (but levels to tape would naturally have to be lower so as not to have it too hot) and just record a preamped signal which can be manupliated later.

Any advice?

It all depends on all the gear!

One might suggest the best route to be MIC > PREAMP > (maybe) COMPRESSOR> TAPE MACHINE - why run it through a desk?

I'm of the opinion that a good A2D is going to blow away anything but a top tape machine , 2 inch Studer or similar, maintained in TOP condition.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that Tape quality is no longer what it was either due to the fact so little is made these days.

The Blizzards wanted to record their album (or at least drums) to tape but having visited virtually every studio in the country with a tape machine went back to Protools .... and that's just with Digi 192s. Tape didn't cut it sonically.

Also tape has no chance unless it has great signals to record.

I think as a 'science project' it'll be good fun, but unless all the stars align, may be disappointing sonically ..... and then you've the hiss!

iquinn

danjokill wrote: »

Ok, so i have a project and I am planning on using tape. Recording Drums.
The plan on the signal chain from mic to tape is as follows
MIC > PREAMP > DESK (take a B mix here for drummer) > COMPRESSOR> TAPE MACHINE
EQ at Mix stage and just record a signal which has passed through the above.
Or Should I forget about the compressor and let the tape do the compression naturally (but levels to tape would naturally have to be lower so as not to have it too hot) and just record a preamped signal which can be manupliated later.

Any advice?

it depends on what way you have everything set up. If the amount of mics you're using is equal to the number of tracks you're putting down on tape, then I'd say leave it off, you can add it later if needed.
But if you're only doing a stereo mixdown from several mics and you're using the compressor to get a specific kind of sound, then leave it on.

as Paul said, most tape isn't as good as it used to be, I don't think the current RMG tape is half as good as the Quantegy GP9. The new ATR tape is supposed to be better, I'd get that, or if you can find any Quantegy, over RMG.
The last batch of RMG i bought was so bad i decided i'd had enough of tape woes. Going to try some digital emulations now, like Virsyn Vtape.

tweeky

Ahh the days of tape......
I remember pain in the ass tapehead line ups, azimuth, Hiss, hard to control signal levels, rewind times. trying to lock up 2 24 track machines to
get 48 track, to lock up means a 30 sec preroll,
razor blades to edit and if the band doesn't like new arrangement ....stick it back together, and try to find an uncontaminated non magnetized blade at 4 in the morning. don't miss it a bit.

Tape compression is a lot more subtle that people read about in SOS, Always have a compressor/ limiter to catch peaks/raise signal to tape etc. Record hihats, overheads, shakers and tambourine lower than in digital and get an engineer to help out first timers as it can all end in tears.

danjokill

teamdresch wrote: »

If you're 100% sure that the compressed sound is what you want, then go for it.
What's the tape machine?

Fostex g16s

PaulBrewer

tweeky wrote: »

Ahh the days of tape......
I remember pain in the ass tapehead line ups, azimuth, Hiss, hard to control signal levels, rewind times. trying to lock up 2 24 track machines to
get 48 track, to lock up means a 30 sec preroll,
razor blades to edit and if the band doesn't like new arrangement ....stick it back together, and try to find an uncontaminated non magnetized blade at 4 in the morning.

Ah da good oul days, Band aids (plasters that is) by the 2 inch all the time ....

PaulBrewer

iquinn wrote: »

it depends on what way you have everything set up. If the amount of mics you're using is equal to the number of tracks you're putting down on tape, then I'd say leave it off, you can add it later if needed.
But if you're only doing a stereo mixdown from several mics and you're using the compressor to get a specific kind of sound, then leave it on.

as Paul said, most tape isn't as good as it used to be, I don't think the current RMG tape is half as good as the Quantegy GP9. The new ATR tape is supposed to be better, I'd get that, or if you can find any Quantegy, over RMG.
The last batch of RMG i bought was so bad i decided i'd had enough of tape woes.

that's interesting, I wasn't aware things were that bad....

danjokill

PaulBrewer wrote: »

It all depends on all the gear!

One might suggest the best route to be MIC > PREAMP > (maybe) COMPRESSOR> TAPE MACHINE - why run it through a desk?

I'm of the opinion that a good A2D is going to blow away anything but a top tape machine , 2 inch Studer or similar, maintained in TOP condition.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that Tape quality is no longer what it was either due to the fact so little is made these days.

The Blizzards wanted to record their album (or at least drums) to tape but having visited virtually every studio in the country with a tape machine went back to Protools .... and that's just with Digi 192s. Tape didn't cut it sonically.

Also tape has no chance unless it has great signals to record.

I think as a 'science project' it'll be good fun, but unless all the stars align, may be disappointing sonically ..... and then you've the hiss!

Desk run is for a B mix mainly for the drummer
The PC running Cubase which is sync'ed with tape via time code Cubase is outputing to the Desk the guide and click for the drummer .

PaulBrewer

danjokill wrote: »

Desk run is for a B mix mainly for the drummer
The PC running Cubase which is sync'ed with tape via time code Cubase is outputing to the Desk the guide and click for the drummer .

Ah! but in Sync mode on your tapemachine there's no latency! So the output of the desk can drive the desk, not the input to it ....

danjokill

teamdresch wrote: »

If you're 100% sure that the compressed sound is what you want, then go for it.
What's the tape machine?

Going for a early 90's Pixies drum sound ........ this drummer is playing it hard

danjokill

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Ah! but in Sync mode on your tapemachine there's no latency! So the output of the desk can drive the desk, not the input to it ....

You saying write the Click and Backing track down to the tape?

studiorat

With a G16 I wouldn't bother. It's most likely knackered at this stage. Check and see are there any flat spots on the heads. I don't think you can line them up either. That tape machine was one of the first of the home/project rigs. I'd record digital and hoof it across onto tape and back off the repro head for the effect.

studiorat

danjokill wrote: »

You saying write the Click and Backing track down to the tape?

Careful with the crosstalk. Many's the time I has to compress the timecode cause the click was corrupting it. Some machines it would happen between trk 23 and 24 others would be between 22 and 24 depending on the machine you were using.

teamdresch

I'd hoof it across a Studer.
By all means give the B16 a go, but bear in mind it's using half the tape width that a professional machine would use to record 16 tracks on.
Expect performance at the low (hiss) and high (saturation) end of things to be patchy.

From what I hear the first batch of RMG was plagued with problems, but more recent runs have been much better.
I haven't tried either.

All the same, Steve Albini reckons :

ATR spent a couple years ensuring they would not have to sell the sort of crap RMG has been passing off as tape in the interim.

I have to say I am thrilled we never had to try to use more than a few rolls of RMG. Virtually all of my experiences with RMG gave me the opinion that the company was neither capable of making reliable tape nor particularly concerned that most of what they sent out was useless. Replacing bad reels is a meaningless formality when the time spent discovering that it is bad is worth a multiple of the tape cost, and the possibility that someone's life's work has been compromised is there with every reel.

Unless out of pure caught-in-the-wilderness desperation, I don't expect to ever use this tape on another session.

So ATR may well be the way to go.

studiorat

teamdresch wrote: »

I'd hoof it across a Studer.

Yeah.
Better still, anyone know if the Academy's machine is 2" 16 or was it 1" 8 track?

That would'nt take too long, few hours at the most...

PaulBrewer

danjokill wrote: »

Fostex g16s

that donkey should be gone to heaven ....

teamdresch

The Academy? Is that a studio?

Beechpark have a fully working Studer A820.

danjokill

studiorat wrote: »

With a G16 I wouldn't bother. It's most likely knackered at this stage. Check and see are there any flat spots on the heads. I don't think you can line them up either. That tape machine was one of the first of the home/project rigs. I'd record digital and hoof it across onto tape and back off the repro head for the effect.

It's at NJM getting a complete re-cap (this is costing me)
The ensure me that the unit will be in an as new status when i get it.

But like your idea

danjokill

PaulBrewer wrote: »

that donkey should be gone to heaven ....

lol ....... classic

danjokill

teamdresch wrote: »

The Academy? Is that a studio?

Beechpark have a fully working Studer A820.

Studer A820 these a super big old 24 track 2" love to have one but ain't got the room. They are monsters

PaulBrewer

danjokill wrote: »

It's at NJM getting a complete re-cap (this is costing me)
The ensure me that the unit will be in an as new status when i get it.

But like your idea

Ah Horse! Recapping a Fostex?

That's like putting silk hoover bags into your Powercity Hoover?

Make me weep by telling me how much it's costing....

danjokill

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Ah da good oul days, Band aids (plasters that is) by the 2 inch all the time ....

Should have said earlier everything is going down to it's own track

danjokill

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Ah Horse! Recapping a Fostex?

That's like putting silk hoover bags into your Powercity Hoover?

Make me weep by telling me how much it's costing....

alot .........

danjokill

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Ah Horse! Recapping a Fostex?

That's like putting silk hoover bags into your Powercity Hoover?

Make me weep by telling me how much it's costing....

Unfortunately fostex no longer sell the channel cards.

PaulBrewer

With all due respect.....

That's nonsense-

The Fostexs, even at the time, were only average machine so returning it to top spec still is pretty low, especially against good digital.

I would suggest there's very little possibility of it returning to 'as new' spec unless all the mechanics , or at least all the bearings are replaced.

The likelihood is that the heads would need replacing too.


I blame SOS !!

PaulBrewer

danjokill wrote: »

Unfortunately fostex no longer sell the channel cards.

No Shizit?:(

danjokill

PaulBrewer wrote: »

No Shizit?:(

I presume this is the offending article

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1997_articles/may97/reel2reelroundup.html

The truth is I am still a ONLY a project studio and this type of experimentation i enjoy ...... the learning process gives me more of a kick than anything ...... i know i can do all this in the "digital domain" it ain't that hard. But if i ain't learning something new be it of lesser quality the process of how I achieved the out come can only make me stronger? i.e this works and gives me this type of sound. The other day I spent hours messing with a Cassette 4 track playing it backwards and bouncing tracks speeding it up and slowing it down ...... it was great crack!!! Love it!!

PaulBrewer

danjokill wrote: »

I presume this is the offending article

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1997_articles/may97/reel2reelroundup.html

The truth is I am still a ONLY a project studio and this type of experimentation i enjoy ...... the learning process gives me more of a kick than anything ...... i know i can do all this in the "digital domain" it ain't that hard. But if i ain't learning something new be it of lesser quality the process of how I achieved the out come can only make me stronger? i.e this works and gives me this type of sound. The other day I spent hours messing with a Cassette 4 track playing it backwards and bouncing tracks speeding it up and slowing it down ...... it was great crack!!! Love it!!

No SOS in general!!

As I originally said as a science project it IS great fun.... and I totally encourage it.

I just think , especially as you're spending reasonable wedge, it may ultimately be of no real use, especially if you're not addressing the mechanics too.

Possibly a good A2D would/will get you a better result overall.

danjokill

PaulBrewer wrote: »

No SOS in general!!

As I originally said as a science project it IS great fun.... and I totally encourage it.

I just think , especially as you're spending reasonable wedge, it may ultimately be of no real use, especially if you're not addressing the mechanics too.

Possibly a good A2D would/will get you a better result overall.

When the guys at NJM inspected the unit the capstan motor and other mechanic's where all in good nic. The head is in good nic and i have sourced a spares should i need them. The only issue was the leaking capicators on the channel cards due to the age and type of capacitors which fostex used. They say they have done this once before and the unit is still working fine.

PaulBrewer

danjokill wrote: »

When the guys at NJM inspected the unit the capstan motor and other mechanic's where all in good nic. The head is in good nic and i have sourced a spares should i need them. The only issue was the leaking capicators on the channel cards due to the age and type of capacitors which fostex used. They say they have done this once before and the unit is still working fine.

Cool! Whatever works Brother

PaulBrewer

tweeky wrote: »

Tape compression is a lot more subtle that people read about in SOS,

And life is a good deal more complex!!

tweeky

Make sure the timecode doesn't "fall off" track 16 like it did on a B16, we always had to put it on track 15.
Also the speed is irregular on most tape machines so if syncing to logic/cubase/ptools use word clock sync on your sync box.

teamdresch

danjokill wrote: »

Studer A820 these a super big old 24 track 2" love to have one but ain't got the room. They are monsters

Not suggesting you buy one.
Suggesting you record your **** and then take it to Beechpark and run it through a proper order tape machine.

studiorat

teamdresch wrote: »

The Academy? Is that a studio?

Beechpark have a fully working Studer A820.

B0llocks. I meant the Asylum. Abbey St.

Liam and Jimmy.

danjokill

studiorat wrote: »

B0llocks. I meant the Asylum. Abbey St.

Liam and Jimmy.

Cheers lads

Seziertisch

I'd second doing your recordings to the digital domain first and then passing them through the tape machine before bringing them back in again. This will allow you to get the levels and stuff right, as well as meaning that the perfect performance will not be compromised by something unforeseen and thus be rendered useless.

I have had some niceish enough results using a 1/2 inch Fostex Machine belonging to a friend in this way.

A cool trick is to speed up the playback slightly to "tighten" the performance. It really lends a superhuman quality to complicated picking pattens on guitars, the same with drums. If you listen to a lot of older records this is apparent in the fact on some recordings all instruments are slightly sharp, in some case even as much as a 1/4 tone. A lot of the early Smiths stuff is a good example, really tight and muscular band performances augmented with just a little bit of magic.

danjokill

Seziertisch wrote: »

I'd second doing your recordings to the digital domain first and then passing them through the tape machine before bringing them back in again. This will allow you to get the levels and stuff right, as well as meaning that the perfect performance will not be compromised by something unforeseen and thus be rendered useless.

I have had some niceish enough results using a 1/2 inch Fostex Machine belonging to a friend in this way.

A cool trick is to speed up the playback slightly to "tighten" the performance. It really lends a superhuman quality to complicated picking pattens on guitars, the same with drums. If you listen to a lot of older records this is apparent in the fact on some recordings all instruments are slightly sharp, in some case even as much as a 1/4 tone. A lot of the early Smiths stuff is a good example, really tight and muscular band performances augmented with just a little bit of magic.

Thanks ...... this is the type of stuff i love to try.

Seziertisch

Don't forget to experiment with the levels of the signal. Clipping is in many cases welcome, particularly on drums, it really lends a nice natural compression and warm graininess, and hitting the tape even harder makes for some really cool lo-fi sounds, which could really make a loop or software instrument come to life.

Also in terms of noise reduction, try it with and without the built in noise reduction, you could find that some of the noise reduction software out there does a better job overall.

studiorat

Yeah.
I'd suggest limiting the kik anyway. That way you can get a nice hot level and the thing won't overload the tape. Monitoring off the repro head all the way.

The Smiths stuff was ofter overdubbed part by part for the drums with a click btw. Kik then snare etc. Just for that particular feel... true!

PaulBrewer

studiorat wrote: »

Yeah.
I'd suggest limiting the kik anyway. That way you can get a nice hot level and the thing won't overload the tape. Monitoring off the repro head all the way.

The Smiths stuff was ofter overdubbed part by part for the drums with a click btw. Kik then snare etc. Just for that particular feel... true!

Morrissey used to play the Hi-Hat I heard ?

tweeky

AMS triggered kik and snare on some tracks with Simmons toms on Panic or Girlfriend i think also.
It was the 80's, weren't we all at it.......triggering that is.

studiorat

tweeky wrote: »

AMS triggered kik and snare on some tracks with Simmons toms on Girlfriend i think also.
It was the 80's, weren't we all at it.......triggering that is.

Yes we were!
So I'm guessing here Chris?

tweeky

darn!

PaulBrewer

studiorat wrote: »

Yes we were!
So I'm guessing here Chris?

Thought I recognized that Slap Head ok ...:cool:

dav nagle

tweeky wrote: »

Ahh the days of tape......
I remember pain in the ass tapehead line ups, azimuth, Hiss, hard to control signal levels, rewind times. trying to lock up 2 24 track machines to
get 48 track, to lock up means a 30 sec preroll,
razor blades to edit and if the band doesn't like new arrangement ....stick it back together, and try to find an uncontaminated non magnetized blade at 4 in the morning. don't miss it a bit.

Tape compression is a lot more subtle that people read about in SOS, Always have a compressor/ limiter to catch peaks/raise signal to tape etc. Record hihats, overheads, shakers and tambourine lower than in digital and get an engineer to help out first timers as it can all end in tears.

Oh thank God we went digital, that sounds like hell!

studiorat

Ha Ha!
I just remembered what a man used to write on the dat for the final final final mix...

GOTCHA!

tweeky

Must be where the tweeky came from! .......to be sure to be sure......just one more,
Age cures all, now it's just two mixes, The master and one with the vocal up 1 db.

studiorat

I'm more a +1.5 man meself!