We just got done recording our album on a tascam DAT machine(definitely not my favorite piece of equipment), I have a otari two track that I want to mix down to. The drummer of our band thinks it is a better idea to mix it down digitally because of what we recorded it on. Though I doubt it, is he right? If not what points should I bring up in arguing my case. Any help would be terrific.Thanks.

What model Otari? Is it a well maintained machine?

b-vapor wrote:If not what points should I bring up in arguing my case.

I'm guessing that, most likely, you'll be mixing to the DAT via the analog inputs on the DAT-R. This means you've done another D/A conversion (leaving the digital multitrack recorder), and are doing another A/D (entering the DAT). I'm also betting the drummer's point is that once you are in digital land, you may as well stay there. And yes, extra conversions (D/A or A/D) are usually not too healthy for the signal. But the drummer's argument is pointless if you are not sending a mixed, stereo DIGITAL signal out of whatever multitrack recorder you used.

Conversely, as gossman implied, you need to have a well-functioning analog recorder. If it's not in good shape, the DAT may be a better option. It took me a while (and some $$) to restore our studio's Otari 2-track to a decent mixdown deck.

our machine is an otari mx5050 just recently calibrated, so far it has not caused any problems.thanks

As Klem brought out...unless you're digitally transferring the audio to the computer you might as well take advantage of your Otari. Any time you make a D/A or A/D conversion you're going to have some degree of degradation to your signal.

though, what about a mastering engineer whose specialty is analog, is it better for him to master from tape on his nice machine or just from a c.d. or whatever? It seems for the mastering engineer tape would be better, am I wrong?

Only if the analog tape machine that you mix to is of higher quality than
the DAT machine that you mix to. 5050s aren't a very quiet machine, and you need to make sure they are well adjusted because their flutter can get out of control pretty fast.

I'm not sure I understand. You recorded directly to DAT? 2-channels? Or did you record to some other digital medium, and you're planning on mixing down to DAT? Would you be mixing down in the digital or analog domain? It's true that multiple D/A/D conversions are bad, but you also have to consider the quality of the converters. If you are mixing down analog, I would say to avoid going straight to DAT unless you have external converters. I owned a DA-30, and its converters are pretty lousy. If you like the sound of the Otari, mix down to it. If you're using a mastering house, they should be able to do a transfer from 1/2" to digital and they'll probably have better converters than you. If you're doing everything in house, find someone with a decent computer audio interface and transfer from the 1/2" to that. Almost all audio interfaces have better converters than DA-30s at this point and even if you're going to DAT the signal will probably be passing through a computer at some point if it's to be released on CD.

Why not mix down to both at the same time? Then you will know which is better.

There are some who say that summing digitally does not sound as good as summing analogue, even when coming off a digital multi. So the argument presented in favour of DAT is debatable.

The DA30 has crap converters, and the Otari MX5050 is not the last word in analog tape decks. So I think it's what you would call "a crap shoot".

goosman wrote: 5050s aren't a very quiet machine, and you need to make sure they are well adjusted because their flutter can get out of control pretty fast.

wtf are you talking about?