Tape machine & Analog summing

[Kaptain K. Rool]

Hey guys I have question I'm hoping some of you guys can answer.


I've been trying to understand analog summing and tape emulation lately. Excuse me if its apparent, I've really tried to get an understanding on this. I remember hearing a few years back about how clean, in-the-box is and how we've lost harmonic distortion and saturation from consoles. (Correct me if that's not exact) So i picked up Sonimus Satson. Since then I've bought Kramer's master tape and slates RC-tube. To be honest I was sure they both were doing the same thing because I hear about how they both add harmonic depth and saturation So I never really used them in conjunction. Yesterday however I saw an interview by Steven Slate where he says he puts his Virtual Tape Machine model on all his tracks followed by the Virtual console collection. That kind of threw me off, I'm kind of lost in what Consoles and tape do. They said it would be exactly like it would be in real life
"you'd hit the tape, Hit the console"

I was hoping someone can explain to me the difference and what they do exactly. I really don't want to just throw on a plugin just because it sounds good if I don't have an understanding on what it does.

Thanks guys

 

[Kaptain K. Rool]

Bump anyone?

 

[Mutant]

Clear your mind, close your eyes, trust your ears.

If it sounds better, use it.

Yes i know it sounds almost too simple, but that approach will make you immune to any snake oil pushers (not talking about Slate now).

 

[Kaptain K. Rool]

Hey mutant thanks for the reply

Thing is Slate talked about there being a recording normative.
"you'd first hit the tape, then Hit the console" I want to understand why that is what it is and what each one does. I just hate the "Oh wait.. why are you doing it like that" thing that happens from time to time. i know (for the most part) my ears wont steer me wrong I'd just like to know why, and what they're for (specifically) to better develop a technique. Thanks again man

 

[RichS]

You hit the console to maximize your signal to noise ratio, which was high in the analog days. You did this with tape as well for the same reason and to get a bit of tape saturation, which is good thing in the analog domain.Then at mixdown you would hit the tape hard again.

Doing this to both the tape and console brought out the best in both of them. With Slates comment Hit the tape prior to the console? In my day we went into the console, out to the tape for tracking. Then at mixdown out from the tape, into the console, back to tape in 2 track form.

 

[Sludgekicker]

the same as with vinyls. endless bitrate. and thats why you cant write a program with an algorythm to give back that infinity wich magnets can give but you can fool your ears

 

[colonel kurtz]

"you'd first hit the tape, then Hit the console" I want to understand why that is what it is and what each one does.

this is the way analog recording works. mic goes to preamp(may or may not be the console's preamp), which then sends to tape. after everything is tracked and it's time for mixing, the tape tracks get sent thru the tape returns to each channel of the console, and the individual tracks of the console are summed to the stereo buss, which is then printed to 2-track tape.

 

[Nimvi]

this is the way analog recording works. mic goes to preamp(may or may not be the console's preamp), which then sends to tape. after everything is tracked and it's time for mixing, the tape tracks get sent thru the tape returns to each channel of the console, and the individual tracks of the console are summed to the stereo buss, which is then printed to 2-track tape.

+1. That sums it up perfectly. The reason why people do it like that is simply because it used to be done like that as well. With that said, there is no technical reason to do it that way if the other way around sounds better to you. So don't worry about it to much

 

[colonel kurtz]

for sure...the best thing about digital recording and plugins is that you can apply whatever you want in any manner you want, and say fuck all the "rules". the old-school way of doing shit was there because it was necessary due to the physical medium...now that audio is a bunch of 1's and 0's, just do whatever you think sounds badass!

 

[Sludgekicker]

Sorry im kinda tired and misunderstood you, thought you asking what the difference is between virtual and real consoles/tapes. Anyway its no big deal to get a deck for mixdown, those armies of plugins can cost you more...i feel like every mixes sounds the same due to this digital world we record in.

 

[amarshism]

Just buy a summing mixer

 

[Kaptain K. Rool]

Thanks a lot guys for your reply's From what I understand The console helps enhance the signal eg. noise ratio, and the tape is for harmonics and saturation.

By the way the interview where he reference the quote is here toward the end

 

[aramism]

i don't know if you fully got an answer from this but there's kind of differences between a tracking console, a mixing console, analog summing, tape saturation, tape as mixdown medium, and plug in emultations.

they are all similar but different at the same time.

prior to the last 15 years or the recording process a-z was basically all of the above (minus the plug ins and summing mixers)

someone already pointed out the signal chain...


but there are many uses and definitions to each.

in general, a "desired" sound has a ton of saturation and color in the entire signal chain a-z in various ways. a popular method nowadays is tracking on something like a neve console with very nice pres on board and then things like drums get tracked from there onto a tape machine but then the individual outs goto PT via high quality converters. you've now captured a drum kit lets say through good mics in a good room through a console (or a dedicated mic preamp which basically does the same thing. IE 1073 pres have almost the same sound as a console w 1073 modules since you are just using that preamp signal as the console is not summing everything as you want the individual tracks)

essentially a tracking console (not a mix console) in the modern world is a gigantic anchor, marketing tool, and a bunch of channel strips. the rest of the features aren't really necessary. once "mixing" became a thing the recording console differed from the mixing console. in the 60s and 70s there wasn't really a dedicated mix so you would track on a console and mixdown at the end of the song all on the that console. so like neve, api, harrison whatever consoles were used for the entire production process.

then came ssl in the 80s and "mixing" became a separate thing. ssl weren't really known for their preamps or used for tracking but rather for their line amps used in mixing where you would track in one room on a console known for it's preamp section and then transfer to 24track or multiple 24 track of tape then then use that to take it to a different room and mix through an ssl. ssl became popular because of their line amps, eq/compression on each channel, summing, and routing for "mixing" utilizations as outboard gear became a "thing".

but even back then the mix after getting summed would still find it's way onto a master tape reel. so you would have all types of analog stuff happening.

speaking of summing it's basically when more than one signal gets mixed down and combined into a single file that has the sum of the parts. IE: a stereo file.

summing in th analog domain in the traditional sense would happen on that ssl for example when you took say 48 tracks from two 24 track tape machines (with content from a neve) and then mix it down into a single stereo track which would be recorded onto tape.

then eventually this process worked but they got into like digital tapes (sony) and then adat and then pro tools in the late 90s.

since then they have made standalone summing mixers where it basically takes all the tracks in your DAW session and summs it in analog as opposed to digital. meaning instead of adding 1s and 0s together and making a stereo file, it is actually "Adding" them in the analog domain. many people argue about this and if it makes things better or worse. computers have gotten so good that ITB summing has it's own desirable sound but lacks the sound of older records that we all like. but for many modern genres it may even work better because it is very transparent and more "hi fi"

while i do prefer analog summing myself i will say don't be fooled into thinking that it replicated tape and a gigantic console because it does not. a small box just cannot replicate the sound of neve mic pres into tape into PT then into a ssl 4k summed.

but it does have a nice sound and while some are subtle and some more smeared it does do something.

now they also have plug ins which basically replicate analog summing. it's kind of funny to me but i can't knock it because i haven't tried it. it's still technically digital summing just made to be less "perfect' i suppose to it sounds more like the analog summing.


and tape saturation is basically just the sound of anything hitting tape at any point. for instance, even now, many big budget recordings will (as i said above) have drum tracks recorded (through, not stored to) tape. they get captured into pro tools but the signal passes through a tape machine and the output goes into pro tools using high quality AD converters so you are retaining most of the signal. so as you said when people say "hit tape" they mean when you pass a signal through a tape machine you are generating a lot of saturation and compression and a whole bunch of other things that while theoretically might be seen as bad they are something which people have been used to as hearing as good. and not in tracking people can "hit tape" during mixdown as well. both magnetic tape and digital tape (the sony digital tape machine from the 90s that many people love even today) is still the medium for mix down as far as a sound. meaning the outputs of the mixing console will be sent to this tape machine and then the outputs of that will go into pro tools as a single stereo file and that is your final mix. sometimes they even use the tape machine just to run it through before it even hits the console just to get the sound. it's crazy there are many configurations. no "right way"

in addition to tape machines there are plenty of hardware units that do this (fatso, herd) as well as plug ins.

and the "hitting" the console is also the same concept. the mixing console can be driven a certain amount as far as how hard you push the input gain and the group busses and compression and the master bus itself. the most popular ssl 4000 consoles are famous for being pushed (overdriven a bit) to get extra saturation and color to the mix. it's NOT just the summing either, it's each channel, the faders themselves, the compressor, etc...

but again, there's no golden rule here. all these things are replicated nowadays in the form of plug ins as you mentioned.

so if you want to add some color and saturation to a mix in the digital world usign them would be great. putting like the waves ssl channel on everything, using tape plug ins on drum group buss, using the tape plug in on the whole mix as well as the summing plug in on the whole mix will get you there. don't be scared to push the stuff a bit as the plug ins (which are based on the hardware) are meant to be "heard" and pushed. even though they are subtle, as long as you don't overload the actual plug in and get nasty digital stuff going on you can play with drive knobs and increase good distortion a bit. that is if you want the sound. plenty of people just use it a bit to add a little amount. it's all to taste. modern metal is an example of the PT era as it is clean and crisp and that is an attribute of the times. but if you are into like older stuff then you can experiment with all these plug ins on your own. and even now there seems to be a big movement back into the analog world and i think things have balanced out. most people agree that based on workflow, sound, and overall product some sort of hybrid system is best. and that is what most pros work on. a hybrid system which has the efficiency, ease, and super control of the modern world, but retains a lot of the color, attitude, and spirit of what people were listening to for many many years and what truly sounds pleasing to the ear.

even major label productions involve both worlds in their work. as i said before they usually track into very nice pre amps. color is added via tracking eqs and subtle compression, sometimes tracked to tape, and then everything is dumped into pro tools at high sample rates. it is then brought back out onto some sort of ssl console and then further colored with tons of outboard compressors and eqs as well as whatever is on the desk and then brought back into pro tools again as a final stereo mix. oh and in between plug ins are used when they outperform or are more feasible time wise for the sound. mainly for cleaning things up, gates, de-essers, effects, eq cuts, etc..





wow that was a long and disorganized post. sorry hope it helps.

 

[wishtheend]

Slate VTM and VCC were a major thing for me. I'm still a novice, but I instantly found that it did something that makes me fight less in a mix. Things feel like they fall into place much easier with just a little comp and eq. My mixes use to be filled with much more processing per track, just feels like it kind of melds the mix together in a way that I'm just making comp and eq decisions just to balance out the overall image. VTM and VCC seem to bring everything into frame, and let me just worry about the focusing.

 

[Mikaël-ange]

then came ssl in the 80s and "mixing" became a separate thing. ssl weren't really known for their preamps or used for tracking but rather for their line amps used in mixing where you would track in one room on a console known for it's preamp section and then transfer to 24track or multiple 24 track of tape then then use that to take it to a different room and mix through an ssl. ssl became popular because of their line amps, eq/compression on each channel, summing, and routing for "mixing" utilizations as outboard gear became a "thing".

Sorry but this bother me...

then came Bob Clearmountain in the 80s and mixing bacame a separate thing is more accurate.

And SSL wasen't know for their line amp, eq...etc. They was know for automation and total recall.
That why SSL become popular and what changed the game for ever...
Most engineer hated the 4K back in the day (harsh, small was some world used to describe ssl sound)... And that also why some engineer started to love SSL board when the 9000J was launched in 94 (big and clear low end with extended high).

You can search over gearslutz, the masemburg forum...etc. Million thread about it are here.

For quote Michael Brauer:

I grew up at MediaSound using a Custom Neve 8068. When I went independent in 1984 and was forced to go to SSL in other studios, I freaked. Aside from the first reliable computer to come out, which I didn't need at the time, the EQ's were just awful and the sound compared to the Neve was tiny and crunchy. As SSL improved their Desks, I began enjoying the sound better but still missed the low end and mids of the Neve.

I first began developing my multibuss compression idea when the 6000 came out using three sub stereos. I was able to get the sound I was looking for in the 6000 so I didn't miss moving away from the 4k series. Then the 8000 came out with four sub stereos and I gravitated towards that one since my approach had developed to the level of needing more sub stereos. Still, I was using alot of Neve outboard to give me the bottom end I missed in the SSL.

While in France mixing a record on a 6000, I went to their recording room that had the new 9000J series. The engineer was recording an orchestra. When the tympanis came in I was floored by the sound of the bottom end. I couldn't believe how beautiful the top end air of the orchestra came across. Finally, I had found a desk that had the bottom and open top end that I had been missing from my sound.

The down side of this amazing new desk was finding the sweet spot and dealing with the computer software glitches. It didn't take long for me to find the desk's faults. First let me explain for some of you what this “sweetspot” thing is. We like to drive the desk to it's limit in order to get a desired sound. This is achieved by how far up we ride the faders when mixing. Somewhere on each desk there’s a sweet spot where the desk comes alive. It's a fine line that we ride between saturation and distortion. These desks have a lot of headroom and as you get closer to the rails (out of headroom) you begin to go into a gradual distortion. On the Neve, the saturation gave us even harmonics. The result being a nice warm musical sound. On the SSL, the saturation gave us odd harmonics. The result being a crunch type sound. The closer you got to the rails the more the desk's sound became apparent. It was hard to make a desk break up so we felt safe in the fact the sweet spot had such a large window to play in without going into bad distortion.

All that changed with the release of the SSL 9000 series. They completely changed all the critical components of the signal path by redesigning the circuit boards. The design was now based on a directcoupled circuit meaning they removed the coupling capacitors within the signal path. No more transformers, no more caps. The result was great bandwidth and a large dynamic range but it didn’t go into a gradual distortion. When you hit the rails, you knew it. It sounded like digital crap out. That nice place where my faders always ended up for so many years was no longer the sweet spot. It was a place where your mix hit the third rail on the subway . My mix would be feeling great and then suddenly guitars or anything transient would touch that “third rail” and an ugly digital glitch sound would fly by my ears. The sound of your mix frying with no place to go but down in smoke. You know what it means to have to take the faders down to another level? The sound of the mix changes drastically. Of course, it was in the process of finding out why the problem was occurring that I learned about the redesign. So I realized now the sweet spot on this desk was lower down on the fader. After a few months I settled on around –20. The desk opened up in ways I’ve never heard before. But still, there would be the occasional vocal or percussion that might hit the rail for a micro second. I found an easy solution. I put the channel strip compressor into the chain on the offending track, pull up the threshold button for quick attack and pull up the ratio button for peak. I keep the threshold at 1 so it’s not active. This simple solution would be enough to keep the transients from touching the rail without working the compressor. Problem solved.

The other discovery I made to avoid overloading the channel input is to bring down the individual channel line trim so each track is reading around "0" on the VU meter. It's easier and i think sounds better than bringing down the output of the tracks in Protools.

When I mixed on the 4k series I was always in vca mode, so when the computer was on, the faders never moved. I didn’t like the option of motors in Ultimation. The Neve was also VCA. I knew the sound very well. When I first began mixing in the 9k I stayed in VCA mode but over time I realized the sound was more open using the motors and of course I got used to seeing the faders move. The downside of the motors was the bottom end not sounding as tight but that was an easy fix since the motors bottom end was so open. The computer was a hundred times better once the software glitches were resolved.

A couple years ago they came out with the 9000K. I recalled stems that I had mixed on a 9000J. The desk was sonically impressive. The overall sound is about 5-10% better. It also addressed the two limitations I have on the 9000J, one being the foldown to stereo mixing for 5.1 in the center section and two being the ability to send both small and large faders to A-D busses. The computer is also way faster.

 

[aramism]

yeah you are correct i know bob clearmountain was like the cornerstone of the whole mixing thing. and i believe his first big hits were done on a neve anyway. but the ssl became the sound of mixing engineers by the late 80s. and the heart of this was the ssl 4000. pretty much every big rock mixer for a very long time has been using some variation from e to g+.

but either way BC was the first superstar mixer who was like the dedicated mix guy. after some time of this in the mid 80s the ssl became the most famous mixing desk in the world. the line amps and it's summing had a lot to do with as they are the direct parts of the signal flow. the channel eq and dynamics also. a lot of it's pros and cons are debatable. for instance so many prefer the older vca automation but many think it's too noise and like ultimation. etc. etc.

but for rock music the ssl 4000 to this day is still kind of the king.


on edit: MHB was never really a "rock guy" anyway that's why lots of pop and r&b guys use the 9k nowadays but the older rock guys use the 4k.
on edit2: i did say before that most records with the budget nowadays that are mixed on ssl any series are usually tracked through either a neve console or some sort of neve pres so they already have the neve sound. and even in the example of the timpani mhb is referring to an orchestra being tracked through the ssl. i did state that no one really tracks using ssl.

 

[Mikaël-ange]

yeah you are correct i know bob clearmountain was like the cornerstone of the whole mixing thing. and i believe his first big hits were done on a neve anyway. but the ssl became the sound of mixing engineers by the late 80s. and the heart of this was the ssl 4000. pretty much every big rock mixer for a very long time has been using some variation from e to g+.

but either way BC was the first superstar mixer who was like the dedicated mix guy. after some time of this in the mid 80s the ssl became the most famous mixing desk in the world. the line amps and it's summing had a lot to do with as they are the direct parts of the signal flow. the channel eq and dynamics also. a lot of it's pros and cons are debatable. for instance so many prefer the older vca automation but many think it's too noise and like ultimation. etc. etc.

but for rock music the ssl 4000 to this day is still kind of the king.


on edit: MHB was never really a "rock guy" anyway that's why lots of pop and r&b guys use the 9k nowadays but the older rock guys use the 4k.
on edit2: i did say before that most records with the budget nowadays that are mixed on ssl any series are usually tracked through either a neve console or some sort of neve pres so they already have the neve sound. and even in the example of the timpani mhb is referring to an orchestra being tracked through the ssl. i did state that no one really tracks using ssl.

Bob C wasn't only the first mixer as we know the profession today. He created the game from mixing to production points...etc.
You are right, his first it was done on Neve (8068 I think but don't quote me on this. This board was at the Power station studio A and Bob C bought this board for put it at Apogee studio).

SSL was popular for automation and total recall once again. That why Neve came back with the V serie years later. Of course it's not just that but that why 4K became the defacto standard for mixing.

I will not argue about the 4/6K (I'm an SSL guy from heart and love those board) vs the J (never worked on a K) witch is my actual fav SSL, and also my fav board I worked on (need to try a 9098I and a 88R).

For heavy mixer on J/K: Jay Baumgardner, Ben Grosse and Andy Wallace (now)

Btw SSL created the outboard madness we all know this day (neve pre put on rack and so)

 

[aramism]

andy wallace mixes a lot at a studio not too far from me and there is a g+ there. and as far as i know, soundtrack studio g still has the g+ he has always used.

 

[SoundsLikeFog]

now they also have plug ins which basically replicate analog summing. it's kind of funny to me but i can't knock it because i haven't tried it. it's still technically digital summing just made to be less "perfect' i suppose to it sounds more like the analog summing.

There is lots of good information on your post and I appreciate the effort. Cheers. But on this line right here, I call 'bullshit'.

Digital isn't perfect. And analog isn't 'warm and fluffy and imperfect'. Quite the opposite. The whole notion that 'digital is too perfect and hifi and that we miss the imperfectness of analog' is nothing more than prosumer marketing bullshit. And people with no experiences nor knowledge repeat them as a mantra. Then people go from ITB to some c-grade analog console with subpar convertters, and go 'gee, how would have known!? It really is warm and fluffy!" And so the myth lives on.

With quality analog gear, you'll have 5hz-300khz frequency range with N to N sampling points. Of course cross talk, harmonic inlinearities, saturation etc contribute to the sound also.

If it helps, think this in terms of photography. You take a picture with a quality digital camera and with a quality analog camera. Both may look great.. But with digital you are always chained to the limits of digital conversion. In analog domain, there are no pixels.. It's N to N.

Airwindows, Slate, Sonimus, Sound Toys and others do make great products that help overcome some of the ill sides of digital audio, but they do not solve the problem. Keeping with the photography analogy, you can not Photoshop the shit you've lost during the AD/DA. No matter how you filter, saturate, sharpen or wank with the digital image, you can't add back the information that you lost. That doesn't mean that you can't photoshop a great image.

For the record, I work complitely ITB for what it's worth.. there are many pros and cons in both digital and analog platforms.

Digital is convenient. But considering sound quality, better than quality analog? Never. Period.

 

[aramism]

There is lots of good information on your post and I appreciate the effort. Cheers. But on this line right here, I call 'bullshit'.

Digital isn't perfect. And analog isn't 'warm and fluffy and imperfect'. Quite the opposite. The whole notion that 'digital is too perfect and hifi and that we miss the imperfectness of analog' is nothing more than prosumer marketing bullshit. And people with no experiences nor knowledge repeat them as a mantra. Then people go from ITB to some c-grade analog console with subpar convertters, and go 'gee, how would have known!? It really is warm and fluffy!" And so the myth lives on.

With quality analog gear, you'll have 5hz-300khz frequency range with N to N sampling points. Of course cross talk, harmonic inlinearities, saturation etc contribute to the sound also.

If it helps, think this in terms of photography. You take a picture with a quality digital camera and with a quality analog camera. Both may look great.. But with digital you are always chained to the limits of digital conversion. In analog domain, there are no pixels.. It's N to N.

Airwindows, Slate, Sonimus, Sound Toys and others do make great products that help overcome some of the ill sides of digital audio, but they do not solve the problem. Keeping with the photography analogy, you can not Photoshop the shit you've lost during the AD/DA. No matter how you filter, saturate, sharpen or wank with the digital image, you can't add back the information that you lost. That doesn't mean that you can't photoshop a great image.

For the record, I work complitely ITB for what it's worth.. there are many pros and cons in both digital and analog platforms.

Digital is convenient. But considering sound quality, better than quality analog? Never. Period.

you called BS but essentially said the same thing. digital is a more transparent and a cleaner signal representation of sound. i never said it's "better." i myself don't even think it's better. i just said that there are plug ins that not only replicate individual gear but also the entire chain from channel strips to summing to tape machine. how close they get? a little close. but it will never be the real deal. you're always going to have an imitation which will never capture the real thing. but the op just asked to understand how all of this gets used and how he can use his plug ins.