Does anybody mixdown to tape anymore?

[technogremlin]

Originally Posted by ReaDave

Those 488's were cool decks. Tascam must've made a mint on their Portastudio range.

I still have it and it's in mint condition too. Can't get away from thinking about somehow re-implementing it into my current studio

[Lucian]

Thanks for the pics, Dave, and the reminiscent memories from all. Tape still sounds the creamiest (super saturated without the grit, extreme soft clipping still needs work in vsts) to me but I do notice high end loss I need to figure out if compensating will work.I just received some reels of new Scotch 206 I am going to experiment with. I think I should post a pic of my modest little unit. There is something wrong with that last sentence but I can't put my finger on it.

[Tod]

Originally Posted by Lucian

Tape still sounds the creamiest (super saturated without the grit, extreme soft clipping still needs work in vsts) to me but I do notice high end loss I need to figure out if compensating will work.

Do you have a test tape for your deck? If you do you can prbably use Reaper to supply test tones to the deck as well as get readings from the deck.

Also head alignment like azimuth and height can be critical.

I just received some reels of new Scotch 206 I am going to experiment with.

What's this costing you now days, are you using 1/4-inch, 1/2-inch?

[Lucian]

Hi Tod...I have no Test tape but use the East Coast Tascam Repair chop for service and had the deck calibrated and was told the Freq Response was flat up to 18k. I wonder if that is enough as hearing can detect higher but I am also turning 50 this year.

I am using a 1/4" half track Tascam 32

The Scotch 206 tapes are new, 7" reels and cost me $9 each. Once a month or so I see something worthwhile on Ebay. I picked up a new reel still shrink wrapped of Quantegy 456 10" for $30-something. All in all I have about a dozen reels of tape: Quantegy 456, 406 and Scotch 206/226 I am playing with.

My next experiment is to compare against the tape sat in Harrison mixbus as that seems a popular flav of the month.

I still like the Tesla VST so far but, as in all vsts I have tried, the soft clipping is too gritty sounding. Everything is still an experiment in progress.

[Dannii]

Originally Posted by Lucian

.....All in all I have about a dozen reels of tape: Quantegy 456, 406 and Scotch 206/226 I am playing with.

I'm keen to hear your thoughts on the differences between tape formulations. Keep in mind, the bias, level and equalization on your deck should be optimized for the tape you choose to use most. The Tascam shop you got your deck serviced at should be able to do those adjustments for you.
My personal favourite tape formulation is Ampex (now Quantegy) 456 or 499. 499 is a newer formulation with higher MOL (max output level), better S/N ratio and better dynamic range but is more expensive. For most use, 456 became an industry standard for good reason.

Originally Posted by Lucian

I still like the Tesla VST so far but, as in all vsts I have tried, the soft clipping is too gritty sounding. Everything is still an experiment in progress.

I must say, I agree with you for the most part. The same is true for most analog synth emulations too IMHO. There's something fatter and warmer (I use those terms only because people know what I mean!!) about actual physical gear and tape machines are no different.
The plugins are decent but the real deal is still better for the most part IMHO.


Here's something that might make you laugh. Even experienced engineers have DOH moments sometimes.....

The most recent song I am working on (I think I mentioned it previously in this thread) is actually a reworking of a song I wrote and recorded nearly 20 years ago. I had transferred all the tracks across to REAPER and had done a mix that I am fairly happy with. Then I got the idea to try some of the VoS saturation plugins on the mix and see what difference it made.
Then the thought occurred to me, "What on earth are you doing? This was tracked on analog tape at 15ips!"
There's ALREADY tape saturation on this track... REAL tape saturation and it ALREADY sounds full and warm because of it!!

DOH!!

[Dannii]

I forgot to mention Quantegy GP9 in my above post. As far as recording levels go, it is a step above 499 which is a step above 456. Keep in mind though, it has a premium price tag and is designed to be more accurate and HARDER to saturate. If you specifically want the saturation sound, 456 is probably the way to go. If you want less noise, better frequency response, more accuracy and LESS distortion, either 499 or GP9 is the way to go.

I'm going to bet, given that you are specifically looking for tape saturation sound, that 456 will be your pick of those three though.

Another consideration is whether the Tascam 32 can actually be tweaked to record hot enough to do GP9 justice. The deck itself may well be the limiting factor with how far you can push things and it is likely the electronics will clip before GP9 tape will. That is something you DO NOT want to hear. You'll hear solid state electronic distortion rather than tape saturation.
499 and GP9 are high end mastering formulations and are a lot newer than the Tascam 32. You'll probably find 456 will suit that deck the best.

[Dannii]

One more thing, don't take my word for it with the electronics of the Tascam 32. I have never personally tried GP9 on such a deck (they are actually decent decks) and it may well cope with the extra capability of the GP9 tape.
My advice is to pick the brains of the techs at the Tascam shop and ask them.

Whatever you do, have fun with it and don't be afraid to experiment. That's one of the best ways to learn.

[Dannii]

....sorry, I keep thinking of more things....

I'd advise you to stay away from second hand 456. Look up Ampex 456 sticky shed syndrome on Google (406 has the same issues). I've personally witnessed this problem with my older tape stock and had to bake it to make it playable. Basically, the older tape stock has a reputation for becoming 'sticky' and sheds it's formulation on your deck which is NOT a good thing!
If you do buy 456 tape (or any old stock of any brand really), make sure it is still sealed in the plastic packaging inside the box.

If you haven't already got one, get yourself a decent head demagnetizer too and learn how to use it properly. The technique I use is to switch the demag on an arms length away from the deck and slowly spiral it inwards until you reach the heads, move it slowly across the heads and then spiral it slowly away from the deck and then switch off.
NEVER switch it on or off close to the deck. That can actually MAGNETIZE the heads. Make sure you keep tape reels well away from an operating demagnetizer.

Also, keep the heads and tape path clean. Acetone and cotton swabs are the best for this. There's a rubber cleaning formulation (Tascam Rubber Cleaner from memory) you can get for cleaning the pinch roller which I highly recommend. I'm not sure if Tascam still make it but if not, I'm sure the guys at the Tascam shop will be able to make a recommendation there.

[Lucian]

Thanks for all the advice! It reminded me I need to get a demag. I been waiting as I only have an hours use on it so far as I record and monitor in one pass and then play with the results in Reaper so I am only using 3-6 mins of tape a week. I had the tech set the deck up for 456, I also had a reel of 406 and he verified the 2 are bias compatible and said I can swap them. He seemed alittle surprised at that too. Of course there is always a contradiction and I read online that as a trick, some bias for 406 and then use 456 as it comes out brighter.

In my head, I would think I would use 406 as it is easier to saturate at +3 and that is my intent; effect. I will most likely check out 406 this weekend.

The Scotch 206 and 226 are Scotch's version of 406 and 456 so setupwise, I should be, at worst, still in the ballpark. Thanks for the headsup on SSS. Right now there is a 10" reel of Ampex 456 and the seller posted the date code sticker and it is a prime candidate. All my tape is Quantegy and so far I am good. As for Ampex, if the date code is not available, the Ampex logo of the newer boxes (Ampex branded but Quntegy made)is across the bottom. Bad tape has the same style Ampex logo across the center, stay away more or less.

I think my deck can bias to GP9 but I will stay where I am as it seemed most versatile to me and for what I want (Saturation/compression) plus what the deck was made for. I may support RMGI and eventually buy a reel of 911 which is also supposedly close to 456, I am unsure if anyone makes 1/4" 406 compatible tape anymore. Oh well. Btw, that 3 track cassette deck looks cool. Can you use audio on all three tracks or is the sync track dedicated and super thin? Makes me wonder how a close cardioid and two far apart omnis would sound on a classical guitar and then bring all 3 tracks into Reaper as a stereo track if possible.

I got 2 beers and a friend's song to work on so ciao for now.

Edit: I do understand why you would use GP9 as it was the clearest, cleanest, most headroom, bestest tape fidelity wise . I want the smoothest cream...not sure whether I am after just tape compression or saturation or a mix, but the less grit the better. I know the sound I want, back when I first found it I had a big boom box that had 1/4" input jacks and I would plug my guitar directly in and it sounded awesome...creamy distortion. I knew nothing of impedance and maybe I just got lucky but the more in the red the needle was, the creamier the sound got. Cream: another one of those technical words.

[SMM]

I have a Tascam 32 (1/4 inch) and do everything at 15ips.

I just wanted to share my thoughts about tape:

I have used 456, 499, and GP9 on my tape deck
(and many other types of tape) over the years.
I found that I liked the 499 the best on my Tascam 32 !!!

I still have some reels of 499 stashed away for future use.

Each type of tape had its "own" sound with the Tascam 32, so,
it is just a matter of personal taste.

I really like the sound of 499. I wish they still made it.
I feel this was the best tape ever made (personal preference).

Side note:
Here is a link to high quality professional tape made in the USA.
http://atrtape.com/

______________________________________________

[airon]

The 499 was the not-archive tape iirc, though I'm referring to 2-inch 24-track in my case. You could run it really hot but it wouldn't hold the signal for as long as archival tape could. Made it great for production, but sooner or later you'd need to archive to other formulas.

Gosh I hardly remember the correct name for this, and I do hope I got this right. Been so long. Ampex 499?

I still have two 1/4 inch reels, one full of my engineering school edits, and the other clean. I figured I could it for foley effects some day .

[SMM]

Originally Posted by airon

The 499 was the not-archive tape iirc, though I'm referring to 2-inch 24-track in my case. You could run it really hot but it wouldn't hold the signal for as long as archival tape could. Made it great for production, but sooner or later you'd need to archive to other formulas.

Gosh I hardly remember the correct name for this, and I do hope I got this right. Been so long. Ampex 499?

I still have two 1/4 inch reels, one full of my engineering school edits, and the other clean. I figured I could it for foley effects some day .

Quantegy 499 Grandmaster Gold (it was originally Ampex)


What would you recommend for archive tape ?

I did not know that 499 was not good for archival.
I have so many archives of that stuff.

Of course, I'm just doing an analog archival back-up of
my digital mixes to 499 after they are mastered.

When I run out of 499, I plan to use ATR.
I tried it with great success already.

I'm all digital, but, I do love to have the
analog reel to reel deck for special uses,
processing, and analog back-up (archival).

[airon]

I'd need to dig in to my notes from back then to tell you for sure which tape was better suited for archival purposes, and which was better for production. The 499 stuck out for me, but it may have been the 456 that did the archiving or production better.

Whichever of the two tapes has the higher remanence capacity is the production tape. It can take more signal but holds on to it for less time.

Be sure to do your own research before you trust my casual musings on this matter.