Premier Rock Forum

Tape Op recently had an article on using tape as a signal processor, the idea being that whilst you may not have enough tape to do a whole recording (say, if you only have an 8 track and need a lot more tracks/ editing flexibility), you can record through the 8 track onto the tape and out through playback head and onto digital.

Another alternative would be to record onto the tape machine then record off it onto digital afterwards.

Some would argue that using digital at any point in the chain undermines the whole purpose of using tape.. what do you think?

I think recording is fun.

First, there's the sound vs. storage issue. Are you using analog for it's pleasing sonic characteristics (more ripid high frequency compression, etc) or as a permanant storage medium?

If you use it for the sound, then digital can capture an analog sound off analog tape. Try it... if you like it, use it, if you don't then you don't have to.

For the record, I've done a variety of analog and digital recording. I'd use a tape machine as a signal processor if I wanted that sound. I see nothing wrong in using whatever tool necessary or fun to acheive a desired result.

cheers
ben adrian
oakland, ca

I was considering using tape as a signal processor too. Another possibilty is recording all to digital first, then dumping certain tracks to tape, and then back again to digital. This way could give you more options in your mix. For example you could hit the snare really hard to tape after you already have a 'cleaner' digital copy of it. If you don't like it, you aren't stuck with it. As far as I am conerned, unless you only release your music on vinyl, its gonna hit the digital realm sometime, to me it doesn't really matter when in the chain it hits it.

I would say the later in the chain you go to digital, the better. Isn't the original post about using the tape machine as a submixer instead of a signal processor?

In my opinion the main problem with bringing audio into and then again out of a computer are bad A/D, D/A converters.
The new generation of converters basically have an identical digital stage. The cheap/bad ones and more expensive/good models differ often only in the analogue stage but this is what makes the huge difference. So you have to consider how often you want to send your signals through your converters, because it will impair your recording's quality. It shouldn't be a problem when you monitor your tape machine's outputs and send the signals to your 1010100110010101010100001010010100001110, because it passes the A/D stage just once. It can get nasty when you keep sending mixes and submixes back and forth between computer and tape machine.
In my opinion a well maintained and properly biased tape machine shouldn't manipulate your audio signal much. Even if you hit the tape at ridiculous levels it won't compress or improve your digital recording.
On the songs that we are mixing at the moment, we're using a Revox Modell G36 1/4" 2-track recorder to process a submix of keyboards and vocals, bring it back on other faders and blend it with the original mix. We overload the input stage of the tape machine to distort the signals. The G36 has 12 tubes in it, so we get a cool tuby mess. Don't monitor the sync head but the repro head and you get a nice tape delay.
It's fun - try it at home.
max.