Analog tape simulation during the mixing process
Analog tape simulation during the mixing process
- Hits:
- 11253
- Rating:
- Vote for this:
-
- 
- Favoured:
-
0
Answer
One of my recurring themes is: Start using accurate monitoring as early as possible to detect problems in your equipment. Monitors with inadequate headroom, and nearfield monitors often do not tell enough of the story. That's the cautionary caveat here...
From: blindfold[a]L2.lonet.ca (Aaron Anderson)
I do not have an unlimited budget (who does?) so i've decided the best thing for me to do is to build a world-class (in theory) 2track signal path, and mix in the computer.. i also do a lot of processing of sounds with different amps, mics, synthesizers, an eventide, samplers, stuff like that... i really like to put sounds in odd spaces and create textures.. anyways, i love the sound of albums produced by Flood (mark ellis.. he's always talking about 15ips in interviews. he's done U2, NIN, depeche mode..) but haI don`tve much experience with tape.. and i still haven't quite gotten the tone i want in the digital realm.
i love compression and dark sounding recordings (achtung baby by U2, radiohead's ok computer, etc the more color the better!) and to this end i use things like the cranesong hedd (great tube simulation), a joemeek comp (goofy box), and a pair of distressors (my swiss army knives).. i also have a couple of neve broadcast modules the sounds, but they still don't really have the bottom and darkness i associate with "tape." does the SPL box really do what it claims? and more importantly, do you think it might help me find what i'm looking for..
Dear Aaron:
My answer is POSSIBLY. I am concerned about recommending the use of analog tape simulators in the mixing process unless you have world-class monitoring which can tell you unequivocally when (if) you've gone "too far." There's nothing worse than the sound of oversaturated analog tape; turn the drive knob one step too far and the distortion you generate will turn from "good" distortion to "bad" distortion. Once any damage has been done, it cannot be undone. Furthermore, I've found that after good mastering, a little bit of analog tape simulation is enough; so using such a device in the mixing chain can be a problem, because you cannot anticipate its interaction with the mastering processors. As usual I recommend that you send two versions of a mix to the mastering house, one with and one without processing. This applies to any processor(s) you put on the mix bus.
In general I recommend waiting until the mastering process for such a box, if you are planning on putting it in the mix bus before your mixdown machine. One of the artifacts of an analog tape simulator is that because of the addition of harmonics, it reduces the transient character of the music; this is like a second cousin of a compressor. All my usual considerations of wordlength and dither also apply, because the box outputs 24 useable bits.
Now, for the subjective sound of the Machine Head. I have found that if you start with a 16 bit source (low resolution medium, already dithered at the 16 bit level) and then process it through the Machine Head, you will not come close to the resolution and quality of a well-made 1/2" 30 IPS tape. The Machine Head is not a perfect substitute for analog tape, but it is a very powerful simulation. It adds a bit of "digititus" onto its "analogitus." That's the tradeoff. Subjectively, it raises the perceived quality of certain musical sources that need "fatness," but don't expect the exact equal to mixing to the highest resolution media. Of course there is no single "magic" solution, and talent and ears count as much as the equipment used.
The list below should put it in perspective. All other things being equal (including the talent of the mixing engineer). This list is based on my experience with the benefits and trade offs of the Machine Head. Sometimes its benefits outweigh its defects, sometimes not. Let's assume you have a rock and roll recording looking for "fatness" and presence and impact... Grades as follows:
* Project Studio Digital Record and digital mix to harddisc, no mastering C+
* Digital Record, digital mix to harddisc (with good dither), master at a generic mastering studio B-
* Digital Record, digital mix to harddisc (with good dither), master at a high-end mastering studio (such as Digital Domain) with all our analog and digital tools (including the Machine head ifdesirable) A-, in special cases, possibly an A
* Digital Record, project studio mix to 24-bit medium, master at a high-end mastering studio with all our tools (including the Machine head if desirable) A to A+
* Digital Record, high-end studio mix with the highest quality mixing and outboard equipment to 1/2" analog, master at a "generic" mastering studio A- to A
* Digital Record, high-end studio mix with the highest quality mixing and outboard equipment to 1/2" analog, master at Digital Domain (probably the machine head will not be needed) A++
Hope you don't mind the plug for the work of Digital Domain!
Now, if you're looking for A's, you know what to do. If you are looking for A++, you also know what to do.
Sincerely,
Bob