sonic difference - input/output
i'm just wondering if you could use a reel-to-reel as a dynamic processor in a sense. recording digitally into pro tools do all your mastering and what not and then send it through a studer.
Sure. Recording to tape and dumping into digital is more rare, but still done. Many, including I will print a digital ITB or outboard analog mix to both tape and digital.
What you seem to be indicating is sending audio through the tape deck electronics for it's color, but you won't get much if any not dynamic control.
If I was looking for real tape deck color I would first try using the Neve unit designed for just such purpose.
why is it more rare, do you think that you get any less of the tape saturation by doing it this way?
to imply that would have to also imply that there is a difference between utilizing dynamic processing on the input signal as opposed to after the fact. with the advent of all this nice conversion, is the difference that great?
Dude, How many years have you been under a rock? Think about it. How many places that record today even have a tape deck or the time/money/space to obtain one just to run signal through every once in a while? There are many other audio devices that can impart color that are far more desireable and have a higher priority. Don't omit the tape for what it does. The signal printed and played back from the tape itself, has as much or more to do with the overall color than just the tape electronics.
Yes, there there can be a difference when you do any processing at any stage. How much of a difference depends on may variables.
If you do any dynamic processing before recording, you are stuck with whatever result you get for further processing unless you readjust and rerecord. It also makes it harder to match up if you need to overdub/record later with the exact same results. Not something for the novice in most cases. Those few with real recording engineering skills, may choose to make good or proper use of dynamics processing in both the recording and mixing stages.
how much of a difference depends on many variables....
is that your way of saying that you don't really know but that it is always safe to assume so?
not to be offensive, honestly
and as far as the reel to reel question, i'm not inferring as to any particular way of using it, basically i was just asking if you could record digitally as normal through your pre's and into your conversion. do all your mastering as normal. and use the reel to reel at the end. recording to tape and playing it back and rerecording it digitally (A/D)
this as opposed to using the reel to reel as your original interface. granted the process i just described adds another step, but so does dynamic processing after the primary input signal has already been recorded. which leads me back to my original question; is this minute difference between these processes about as large as the differencae between cutting lo's and hi's and boosting mids (on a digital EQ mind you remy)
this is of course with the advent of proper conversion these days,
i'm also assuming that this method allows for the novice to bypass most of the horrors of tape, which occur in editing and mastering on it. correct me if i am wrong. however i must still question how large the difference is sonically between the "novice" method and the typical "pro" method.
Many variables as in many variables. I think it is safe to assume that any processing can and often makes a difference. This is the Pro Audio forum for talking about gear and not the recording forum where skill and technique of using gear are meant to be discussed so no need for me to go into finite details here. Needless to say that there are many variables to be considered and be managed. It is more about knowing/deciding what the end result you are after is, and then doing what needs to be done to get there. This task may or may not include using an analog tape recorder or any other type of processing based on the what the specific song or project needs.
Without all the specific details and variables understood, any answer would be just a shotgun guess. There can be differences that could be very drastic depending on the gear being used, how it is interfaced and the skill of the person using the gear. Why don't you obtain the gear you need, try for your self and then come to your own conclusions. That is what true audio engineering is all about...
aqualand666 wrote: is this minute difference between these processes about as large as the differencae between cutting lo's and hi's and boosting mids (on a digital EQ mind you remy)
It's statements like these that reaffirm in my mind that you are truly here to stir the pot and not actually obtain any hard/good information.
It doesn't matter whether you're using a digital EQ or an analog EQ to do this cutting/boosting. First, why would you do this? What benefit is provided? Are you suggesting that doing this would provide some degree of warmth? Analog and digital EQs work the same way. They distort time and phase to influence frequency. The ONLY exceptions (and not even entirely true exceptions in some cases) are TRUE linear phase EQs. Even most LP EQs though do a poor job as they try to correct for phase errors that they induce (sometimes well, other times, not so well.)
on the issue of cutting and boosting; i'm not suggesting anything, i'm only doubting that the difference that occurs is any larger than minutia. this doubt extends to both the effect produced digitally and on analog equipment.