Correct. The only way in is through the 192's. BTW, did you buy 3 192's, or 2 with the expansion cards? That's what I did.

Anyway, I know that a friend of mine has a Studer A80. Even with the 8 track head stack in he gets out to 30kHz out of it. Both has a sound. Both sound different from the original signal.

I have tracked to PT and dumped to tape and vice versa. The tape machine is not an effects processor.

Actually....how tough is it to do a manual mix?
And/or you could do it the way they used to pre-automation. mix it in sections into HD (so now your only taking about 2 tracks) at the highest sampple rate (192). Edit the sections together. If you stripe code on the tape (if you have a track) Pro Tools will chase. Now you can punch in (or have pro tools punch in at a predetermined spot, so you can keep your hands on the faders). Some pencil marks for sections, ect., and you can work your way down the mix all analog except for the 192KHz 2track. Viola!

[ August 22, 2003, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: RecorderMan ]

If you haven't already, you might want to dump the tape tracks into pt, which would allow you to mix it and would also still sound like tape. Or are you saying that you've already done this and the pt version doesn't stand up to the original tape? In this case you might want to consider renting different converters or getting vca automation for the console.
If you do end up mixing it in the computer, be sure to have the individual outputs of each track coming back into a channel on the console, and take your final mix from the console bus...pro tools' 2-bus mixing, especially at high levels, is part of the "pro tools sound" that people don't like.
Chris

Yes Chroma 17, I dumped the tape into the pro tools, and have the output of pro tools going into the channels in the console and it doesnt quite stand up to the tape

it would be easier simply booking a room that has a desk with automation, grabbing the reels and take em there to mix :

I mean when I need to track drums I go to a room that can give me a good "drum sound" same thing with mixing.....if my room cant handle a job then I'll find one that can.

Pepsi vs. Coke? Marlboro vs. Winston? This debate will go on forever...

I like the manual mix idea to PT if you want to keep it "real". Besides, it always happens more for me when the automation is minimized and you learn the song enough to mix manually. Your mix will be better because of the time you spend with the MUSIC instead of tweaking automation; as well.

I love mixing in PT, especially with a Pro Control; but the _feeling_ of some of the mixes I've done manually are far better than when I've tried to improve upon the same track. Sometimes old-school's the best way to do it.

Dan Roth
Otitis Media
Audio - Video - Film
dan@otitis-media.net

If you, and/or the band, prefer the sound of the analog why not do it REALLY the old fashioned way?
Mix, 'manually', to 2 track and remix and edit (cut the tape) in sections as you need to.
Do a pass as well as you can. Then play it back and as you discover things that need to be fixed, remix that section and cut it in. Listen again. Repeat until satisfied.
Many an astoundingly good record was made that way.

Originally posted by wwittman:
If you, and/or the band, prefer the sound of the analog why not do it REALLY the old fashioned way?
Mix, 'manually', to 2 track and remix and edit (cut the tape) in sections as you need to.
Do a pass as well as you can. Then play it back and as you discover things that need to be fixed, remix that section and cut it in. Listen again. Repeat until satisfied.
Many an astoundingly good record was made that way.

like ALL the classic ones :) listen to any of the older steely dan or even pink floyd's the wall...amazing mixes, no automation.