Oct 15, 2008 10:23 pm I can't remember if the 338 had direct channel outputs or not. If it does, that is were you want to run the signal from into the audio interface.
ok, here come the questions.
Posted on Oct 15, 2008 10:01 pm
Dematrix
http://www.reverbnation.com/2ndg
Member Since: Nov 27, 2007
well im going to set up this new analogue desk i landed.
what i want to do is run the desk in conjuction with the computer. im not gonna tackle the tape just yet, i still gotta get some.
if i want to run the desk like you would an effects loop, where from, and where to? i guess is the question.
can i go, mic into the desk, and then in to the interface > software, and then back out again as a return to the desk, so i can get the sound of the desk in the loop?
[ Back to Top ]
Oct 15, 2008 10:23 pm I can't remember if the 338 had direct channel outputs or not. If it does, that is were you want to run the signal from into the audio interface.
Oct 15, 2008 10:46 pm yep its got chan. outs.
what about the return, or should i go out of the "effect out" of the desk, into the interface, outta that back into the "effect return" on the desk?
the channel outs have,
RCV (jack) (not sure what that is)
a Send, a line in jack, a tape out RCA and a mic in xlr.
fair enough i can just try all this, but i gotta go buy xrta leads so i wanna make sure i got it right.
Oct 16, 2008 01:55 am Tape out goes to your interface (assuming it's 8 channels, you'd need an 8 channel interface at a minimum). The outs of the interface would *later* go to the line inputs ("later" as in, you're going to create a loop if you have them all connected at the same time and that would not be in your best interests).
RCV is "Receive" -- Opposite of "Send" -- Two single jacks instead of a TRS insert.
Oct 17, 2008 02:52 am thanks MM, i have possibly got this wrong, but i have a mate that uses his desk in a loop config. like you stated.
i cant remember exactly how but im pretty sure he is kinda using it like a effects loop. he's going into the interface from desk and out again into the desk.
like an running a rackmount eq thru an amp using the effects loop.
anyway, now i think of it, i cant see why you would wanna do this.
what would the difference be doing that, to just going into the interface and computer and thats it??
Oct 17, 2008 11:39 am I still tend to mix with a lot of outboard, if not through an analog mixer (or at least, an analog summing unit).
Depends on how the software handles it - On some, you need to go out one channel and back on another. On some, you can 'insert' an analog chain at the channel.
The difference? It's whether you like the analog chain better than the digital. I tend to like analog 'where it really counts' although I'm pretty happy with a lot of digital processing otherwise.
I'm going to assume that you'd like the average digital EQ over the EQ's on the Tascam - But there's nothing wrong with experimenting with it -- You'll have to adjust latency on the analog O/I channels, so you can run a slate across all the channels to make that easier.
Oct 17, 2008 09:42 pm ok cool, well atm all this is a little over my head, i need some time i guess to suss it all out.
im sure i will post more questions after i play around with it.
what i am wondering though is, and at least hoping, that the pre's sound better than the ones on my interface.
hopefully warmer anyway being analogue and all.
Oct 18, 2008 01:58 am Every preamp is analog.
Oct 19, 2008 09:29 pm ok, well there you go.
well ya gonna get a different sound running throught the desk though im assuming,
but when you say "adjust the latency on O/I channels so i can run a slate across all channels",
can you explain that a bit for me there MM?
Oct 19, 2008 11:33 pm If you're using analog channels as inserts, there's going to be latency going out and back - You'll have to delay every other track a certain number of samples to have them line up again.
Slating is just like a slate in the filming (the clap-board that lines up audio to video). You just run a tone burst (I use a four-second 1k to 2k countdown at the head of every mix I do) so you can find out how many samples you need to delay everything.
I misspoke to some extent in the last - To clarify - You need to adjust the latency of the digital channels to *match* the latency caused by the conversion of the analog channels.
Oct 20, 2008 01:37 am so, you mean the latency in my software?
Oct 20, 2008 11:31 am More accurately, the latency cause by your hardware (your converters in this case) - You're going to have to make all the other tracks as late as the tracks you're sending out - Unless your software has latency compensation for hardware - Some do - But they do the same thing. Send a slate down all the channels and delay the rest by the same time.
Oct 20, 2008 08:21 pm sorry mate, i have no idea how to do this, but i sure as hell will try figure it out. will read thru some things see if i cant suss it.
hopefully cubase4 has it like you say, will read thru "Le manual"
Oct 21, 2008 01:52 am I *think* that SX4 has hardware latency compensation -- It'll probably have you set up whatever the chain is going to be and run a click through the system, analyze the amount of time it took for the click to return (the latency of the chain) and delay all the other tracks by that much.
Oct 21, 2008 03:18 am Deleted By Deon
Oct 21, 2008 05:11 am Deleted By Deon
Oct 21, 2008 05:53 am still reads like dble. dutch to me.
i can understand what its saying but havent a clue as to what things, eg, word clock, VTIC, LTC and MTC etc actually mean.
it doesnt give me any definitions, so im clueless.
im looking to record some fat anologue distorted guitars. this is basicly what im looking for a this stage.
i suppose i could record straight to tape, but listen to the drums on the software, and then dump the tape recording into the software project and sync it up that way by moving the wav.
Oct 21, 2008 05:35 pm Pull off the repro head on the deck directly - Line it up later. Few decks have the precision it would take to line up the heads *and* tails of the song.
If you record to tape and take the tape out directly to your interface, you don't have to worry about stretch or any sort of goofy motor or belt issues.
And keep in mind that getting that 'fat analog distorted guitar' sound is 95% 'the sound' and only 5% about tape -- The tape may do far more damage than good.
That said - A lot of people I know only get the proper levels when recording to tape (and overdrive their front ends wen recording digitally). That has more to do with the tone than a lot of people realize... Especially with saturated sounds like rock guitars. Back off on your input levels (distorted guitars should rarely go above -20 or -18dBFS digitally) and you might find that tone you're looking for without the additional hassle.
Oct 21, 2008 09:05 pm Thanks for your help with this MM, i appreciate it.
i will ask what you think about one more thing,
when you hear of people, running into an outboard compressor from a guitar amp, and then into the desk to tape to get that fat anologue sound what are your thoughts on that?
i can see the advantages, i guess its controlling the heavy palm mutes and tracking down any really crapy frequncies that may show up "after" compressing, whether that is from the amp setting, room, or mic placement.
The reason ive been going on about it is, i do get some crudy frequency issues after compressing with my software comp.
lets just say for now though im just gonna leave it at that, and get on with things and see how i go, i think im being a little too fussy atm.
thanks again for all your input MM, you have made things alot clearer for me.
This site is Bloody Invaluable.
I will be sure to post some "crapy" anologue guitars soon. Ha Ha Ha.
Oct 21, 2008 10:43 pm Quote:
when you hear of people, running into an outboard compressor from a guitar amp, and then into the desk to tape to get that fat anologue sound what are your thoughts on that?
I still think that getting the sound at the amp is paramount. Anything else is a band-aid. I used to get bands in with all these amps - Cranked pre-gain, mids at '0' - presence all the way up - wondering why it sounded so thin. They're trying to get "crunch" but they're setting themselves up for "fuzz" and the two hardly resemble each other.
I love hitting tape. I love compressors. But tape, if used for 'that tape sound' is a single layer of frosting on a rather complicated cake. It's "that something" that tape has - It's not going to be the "make or break" point of a recording in most cases.
Compressors - I don't think I've ever compressed a metal guitar before. They're already inherently, heavily, heavily compressed. Palm mutes will get worse, they'll trigger any compressor with a side-chain that isn't rolled off up to around 250Hz (which is going to make it pretty useless anyway). The best way to avoid the thwumpies (and the best to avoid sibilance in vocals) is to make sure they're not there at the source.
Quote:
i can see the advantages, i guess its controlling the heavy palm mutes and tracking down any really crapy frequncies that may show up "after" compressing, whether that is from the amp setting, room, or mic placement.
Sorry - got ahead of myself in the last paragraph... :-)
Quote:
The reason ive been going on about it is, i do get some crudy frequency issues after compressing with my software comp.
I'd just leave it off then.
RULE OF THUMB (which I beat like a dead horse in many places but can't recall if I ever brought it up here):
Compress things that have a dynamic range that's too wide for the mix (I know that sounds almost stupidly oversimplified, but that's the key starting point IME). Otherwise, leave it off. If it's for a particular effect, that's another story - But the overuse of compression is like a plague... I've got a project in right now that I've been fighting with for a week - The engineer told me that he had a compressor on every track. And it shows... On dense metal mixes, I used to use maybe 5 or 6 channels of compression - and you can bet that half of those were for ducking busses.
Less (less gain, less distortion, less compression, less EQ, less verb, less modulation, etc., etc.) is almost always more. You can always add more later if the mix asks for it.
Oct 22, 2008 12:46 am cheers MM, will, see how i go, i picked up some new tape today, so i will muck about and see where im at.
|
Related Forum Topics: |
If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.