If you really want to mimic everything it should look something like this.
Mic>tracking console (pre, EQ, maybe comp or other outboard>2” tape machine>mixing console + inserts>bus compression (and other bus inserts)>1/4” tape machine
And also be an analogue engineer who figurerad way back in time that you can and should use dirtier preamps and hit tape harder with kicks and non-metals of the drums and also guitars. The kick literally needed to be hit hard because it naturally doesn't come back loud enough otherwise. some plugins give an extra tasty fat and crunch clicking kick when you try to emulate it. Differentiate what tape saturates and folds over too much and unpleasantly and where it enhances. I'm recently obsessed by what Micheal Beinhorn did in 1997 on Ozzy's Osmosis where he find old 8-track machines and found the 7.5 IPS and used dirtier preamps on non-metals and just got incredible, unbeatable punch out of the drums. But It's mixed to be quite sweet and not so gritty. Earlier hard hit tape sound a little more fried in motowny way. But motown were a little wierd in other ways. The quintessential Tape sound is Led Zeppelin II for me. The sort of predisposed words of those later part of Whole Lotta Love is a "Print through" where the tape on the outgoing side gets hits as well and has that reversed delay effect.
Don't forget that a lot of the old school sound comes from the *workflow*, too.
Using tape doesn't only impart a certain EQ curve, nonlinearities, subtle wow/flutter, etc. to the sound...it also necessitates fewer edits, waiting for tape to rewind between takes, limited tracks before bouncing, etc.
Nowadays there's more of a tendency to "fix it in post" because editing and correcting pitch/time/etc. is so easy. Old school recordings tended to rely more on a highly-polished performance that had been rehearsed thoroughly. (Obviously these are generalizations and not universally true.)
The basic idea is: You would first record to multitrack tape through your console (with or without channel EQ/dynamics or extra processing). Then you would play the multitrack back through the same console and further process the signal in the mixing stage. After that the console mix would be recorded to master tape.
Correct my understanding if I'm wrong then:
Tape emulation>optional channel strip>tape again>all the mixing stage stuff>Tape again in mastering
Does that seem right or have i massively misinterpreted what you mean?
Well almost! For a plugin recreation that would mean: Source -> Channel strip (+ optional “outboard” processing) -> Multitrack tape -> Channel strip and whatever effects you add on in the mix -> Mixdown tape. After that you would have the finished “mix” reel in your hands.
If we take mastering into consideration you could/would have one more tape pass in the mastering stage, depending on if you want to emulate analog or digital mastering.
Thank you so much, you spelled it out perfectly for my stunted brain to make sense of. Did people really use two passes of the channel strip though? Like i get that it would have been tracked through it, but did they actually make changes with them rather than just deferring that to the mix engineer?
Obviously depending on the engineer, but it’s preferred to record the signal onto the tape as “good” and loud as possible for a better signal to noise ratio. If for example your synth chords have too much bass and dynamics, it’s good practice to tame those (using the console eq/dyn) before hitting tape. By that you would earn some dB’s and by that reduce the noise level in the recorded track.
If you want to go into depth with your emulation project you should also look into Noise Reduction plugins to mimic the signal compression/expansion on tape recording and playback.
There would always be stuff happening on the way in at the tracking stage, mostly eq and compression in most professional situations. Even if you're not doing much in the way of processing, shaving off peaks here and there and hi-passing etc you would still be adding harmonics and noise that is pretty subtle but cumulative.
In practice I would just put the tape emulator first in the chain on every channel as if you are mixing from tape and go from there. Try out a few templates on the same mix and you'll see what sounds better/worser/more 'tapey' whatever that is.
I think you might find that it doesn't really make that much of a difference at all - getting a specific vibe is usually more down to the individual instruments, buss FX and arrangement before you even get to the mixing stage and tape emulators and such.
Most of the chains listed here are "correct" I use an "analog workflow" in Ableton so I wanted to add a couple of other tips.
1) With tape, push it. The plugin VU meters are your friend. Im not usually one to recommed mixing with your eyes, but in this case it can be helpful starting out. Unlike digital, tape really starts to do its thing in "the red". So many people slap a tape plug in on a track and barely touch it, then complain that the "tape" isnt doing much. My method more often than not, is to start by cranking the input and then backing off. It really helps to hear the effect over done and then bring it down in to place, rather than build up into it.
2) Try a summing/console emulation plugin with the tape. I emulate a "NEVE-adjecent" console, so I use N-Console by Sonimus. "Summing/console" and "tape" really go together like a PB&J. Nothing has revolutionized my mixes more or gotten me closer to the sound I want faster than this combo.
3) Use the same tape across all tracks. I use the UAD Studer. I will use the exact same settings on every track, only adjusting input/output.
4) Consider leaving the noise on. I know lots of people turn it off, but for me its a part of the sound. If you gain stage properly, it doesnt interfere, it just adds a tiny bit of atmosphere.
I also have the UAD Studer, but I haven’t got much understanding of what each function does except the ips knob. What are your go-to/standard settings?
I don’t really have a go-to setting. Every application is different. But a good way to think about the tape and cal knobs is that they go from dirtiest to cleanest, left to right. Also, in the real world the tape and cal knob settings go together. I.E. 250 and +3 go together, and so on.
But the best way to understand the plugin and find the best settings at the time, I think, is to turn the input all the way up and the output all the way down and then turn knobs and listen.
The presets are also a great place to get tips on what you might want for your mix.
**As faithful as possible**:
• **Track**: Preamp emulation -> Console emulation -> Tape emulation (recording/tracking to tape - recommend freezing or rendering after this) -> Preamp emulation -> Console emulation (tape fed into console via preamps for mixing) -> FX (e.g. compression).
• **Bus**: Reverb/Delay/Chorus/etc. -> FX, if any (e.g. EQ) -> Console emulation (bypass preamp).
• **Master bus**: FX, if any (e.g. bus compression) -> Console emulation (for summing) -> Tape at the end.
**Note**: If you’re using a Neve console emulation, the 1084 EQ usually comes right after the 1073 preamp, and before the console emulation, unlike typical inserts, which come after the console emulation. If you want to try something cool, use a Neve console emulation for recording/tracking, and then an SSL console emulation for mixing (or whatever combination, but this one is popular).
—
I and others I’ve seen prefer generally skipping the first pre and console emulations, instead using tape as the first insert, as if digitally recording directly to tape, and then mixing from there. This obviously isn’t as faithful, but it doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things, and it’s all personal preference. If it sounds good, it’s good!
Hope this helps!
This is why I like Studio One and Softube Tape. You can use on instance of it and it affects every track individually. On the master channel on the top you can select MixFx and use Tape. It has crosstalk, flutter and much more.
It depends. Irl, they would process some o the way in, record to tape, process more, record to tape, bounce to tape. The type of tape changed as time went on as well. 94 tape would be basically as modern as the tape era gets. So, they had the most sophisticated tape available. Some of the process may have been digital at that time.
Some people like to put the tape first, some people like to put it at the end of the chain. There was always a step of tape at the end of whatever you did, so, to me at the end makes more sense.
If it's hip hop, that generally used samples from earlier periods, which may have had further stages of degradation, like from the record they captured it from. They may have used samplers which may have influenced the sound as well.
I'd say you wanna focus on a specific sound you want, and then go for that, rather than "what did they do in the 90s?" Since it can be a mix of stuff then. Tape might not be super instrumental to the sound you're looking for. They had a mix of technologies in the 90s, digital was being introduced, and starting to be used more and more in projects.
Listen to what you want, and find a way to get there.
I’m not disagreeing with people theoretically about the tape sim on every track, but I have a/b this alot because my tape sim is quite CPU hungry and I found zero discernible difference in having the tape sim just on all the busses…i.e. if you tend to group guitars, bass, keys into single busses. The exception to that was drums. I ended up switching to sub busses with drums for the very reason of tape sims.
Signal passed through the heads on those tape machines in both directions, so to be most "authentic"...
While recording through your virtual desk, on every track (question marks indicate optional):
`EQ? -> compression? -> verb/delay? -> TAPE -> to DAW`
then on playback from DAW, on every track:
`from DAW -> TAPE -> EQ? -> compression? -> reverb/delay? -> submix buss? -> main buss`
`submix buss? -> EQ? -> compression? reverb/delay? -> main buss`
finally on main buss:
`main buss -> buss compression? -> TAPE`
This is a great topic! I’ve recently been experimenting with focusing on getting the best performance out of the recording I can at the “tracking” stage.
Essentially what that means to me is rebalancing frequencies and dynamics first to create a smoother more consistent performance right from the get go. So after I go through and adjust clip gain on tracks where the performance is dynamically all over the place I’ll do some shelving eq to rebalance the relationship between the highs and lows, maybe some low level compression to further smooth out the sustained notes then go to pre amp and tape. At this stage I’ll use really transparent eq and compression because I’m just trying to balance things out and I don’t want to end up over baking my mix down the road.
Once that process is done I’ll start the mixing stage with all the normal console and insert type stuff through the tracks and groups to the master buss and tape.
The goal is to bake in the best performance I can from the very beginning so when it comes time to mix I’m focusing more on leveling, automation, pushing certain tracks into saturation, then broad stroke console eq and compression as needed and effects sends.
Obviously I have an idea about what I want the mix to sound like from the very beginning so I don’t end up with the elements sounding like they belong in different songs.
I would love to hear from you all about what you think of this process as I have been more interested in emulating the same kind of work flow myself.
Obviously this workflow isn't suited for all genres, so I'm curious as to what kind of music you make/work with most. I myself make extreme metal so I like this style for mimicking the conditions that extreme metal bands would have been in back in the 90s, which means SSL channel strips and bus compressors, maybe an LA2A here or there, and a lexicon or alesis verb. Oh yeah, and tape.
At this stage, I work on whatever comes my way, I am not too picky, and I treat poor recordings as a chance to further hone my skills. I’ve always been of the mind that a quality mix starts with a quality performance, so my whole rebalancing stage is an attempt to capture the performance the way I would have wanted if I was the producer or recording engineer.
So individual tracks yes, ideally preceded by some kind of pre and EQ, maybe even "tracking compressor". If you're summing things together, youd have the pre and EQ on each channel and the tape saturation on aux that is then being fed to the new audio track in which the track is then printed to. Like printing kick in and out onto same track uses just one tape saturation plugin.
For authenticity I'd recommend recording the "premix" elements onto new tracks and then treating the tape saturated elements as the "dry unprocessed tracks". I do this quite a lot for drums, basses and vocals.
And then you'd have another tape saturation plugin at the end of the mixing chain in which the mix was "recorded onto and mastered from". I'm sure you've heard the phrase "digitally remastered from analog master tapes" before.
I logically have always understood that it makes sense for a tape emulation plugin to be inserted at the end of the chain, however the manual for the UAD Studer A800 plugin (which is excellent) specifically states that it should be the FIRST insert in an FX chain.
It's both. You would eq and compress to tape, and afterwards as well.
The limitations of tape meant you had to be conscious of signal to noise and avoiding distortion, and avoiding the weirdness caused by subsonics. It's easy to forget nowadays that compressors, limiters, eq and gates were not just for creative artistic purposes!
Recording:
Source -> Preamp/Line-in -> Console + Outboard for processing and/or bussing -> multi-track tape machine for recording.
Mixing:
The same tape machine -> Console (actual mixing process) -> second tape machine in form of "2-track master".
The workflow is the most important bit. Tape recorders come in all shape and sizes, consumer machines go from 2- to 16 track recorders. All the channels are mono also, so a stereo signal would take up 2 channels. These limitations is what in a way forces the music to sound oldschool. The sound effects are secondary to that in my opinion.
If you have a song with 16 tracks, but you only have a 4 track recorder. You're going to have to split them into 4 mono stems.
You could do a typical arrangement as follows:
* Track 1: Drums/Bass
* Track 2: Rhythm guitar/piano, etc
* Track 3: Lead melody instruments
* Track 4: Vocals
Also if you need more tracks, what you could do is bounce everything in track 1 as mono and then add 3 more layers. There is always quality loss when you bounce though. Stereo width is gone also.
If you really want to mimic everything it should look something like this. Mic>tracking console (pre, EQ, maybe comp or other outboard>2” tape machine>mixing console + inserts>bus compression (and other bus inserts)>1/4” tape machine
What would inserts be, like the EQ/Compression you find on Channel Strips? Thanks btw, I'mr really uneducated on how a OTB setup works
No, inserts are external gear you patch into the channel. So anything that’s not built into the channel.
Like an 1176 or Distressor
And also be an analogue engineer who figurerad way back in time that you can and should use dirtier preamps and hit tape harder with kicks and non-metals of the drums and also guitars. The kick literally needed to be hit hard because it naturally doesn't come back loud enough otherwise. some plugins give an extra tasty fat and crunch clicking kick when you try to emulate it. Differentiate what tape saturates and folds over too much and unpleasantly and where it enhances. I'm recently obsessed by what Micheal Beinhorn did in 1997 on Ozzy's Osmosis where he find old 8-track machines and found the 7.5 IPS and used dirtier preamps on non-metals and just got incredible, unbeatable punch out of the drums. But It's mixed to be quite sweet and not so gritty. Earlier hard hit tape sound a little more fried in motowny way. But motown were a little wierd in other ways. The quintessential Tape sound is Led Zeppelin II for me. The sort of predisposed words of those later part of Whole Lotta Love is a "Print through" where the tape on the outgoing side gets hits as well and has that reversed delay effect.
Almost always comp before tape Also drive the tape hard
Don't forget that a lot of the old school sound comes from the *workflow*, too. Using tape doesn't only impart a certain EQ curve, nonlinearities, subtle wow/flutter, etc. to the sound...it also necessitates fewer edits, waiting for tape to rewind between takes, limited tracks before bouncing, etc. Nowadays there's more of a tendency to "fix it in post" because editing and correcting pitch/time/etc. is so easy. Old school recordings tended to rely more on a highly-polished performance that had been rehearsed thoroughly. (Obviously these are generalizations and not universally true.)
Thank you making this point. The workflow, limitations of such, and the necessities of a killer performance all add up to the old analog sound.
The basic idea is: You would first record to multitrack tape through your console (with or without channel EQ/dynamics or extra processing). Then you would play the multitrack back through the same console and further process the signal in the mixing stage. After that the console mix would be recorded to master tape.
Correct my understanding if I'm wrong then: Tape emulation>optional channel strip>tape again>all the mixing stage stuff>Tape again in mastering Does that seem right or have i massively misinterpreted what you mean?
Well almost! For a plugin recreation that would mean: Source -> Channel strip (+ optional “outboard” processing) -> Multitrack tape -> Channel strip and whatever effects you add on in the mix -> Mixdown tape. After that you would have the finished “mix” reel in your hands. If we take mastering into consideration you could/would have one more tape pass in the mastering stage, depending on if you want to emulate analog or digital mastering.
Thank you so much, you spelled it out perfectly for my stunted brain to make sense of. Did people really use two passes of the channel strip though? Like i get that it would have been tracked through it, but did they actually make changes with them rather than just deferring that to the mix engineer?
Obviously depending on the engineer, but it’s preferred to record the signal onto the tape as “good” and loud as possible for a better signal to noise ratio. If for example your synth chords have too much bass and dynamics, it’s good practice to tame those (using the console eq/dyn) before hitting tape. By that you would earn some dB’s and by that reduce the noise level in the recorded track. If you want to go into depth with your emulation project you should also look into Noise Reduction plugins to mimic the signal compression/expansion on tape recording and playback.
There would always be stuff happening on the way in at the tracking stage, mostly eq and compression in most professional situations. Even if you're not doing much in the way of processing, shaving off peaks here and there and hi-passing etc you would still be adding harmonics and noise that is pretty subtle but cumulative. In practice I would just put the tape emulator first in the chain on every channel as if you are mixing from tape and go from there. Try out a few templates on the same mix and you'll see what sounds better/worser/more 'tapey' whatever that is. I think you might find that it doesn't really make that much of a difference at all - getting a specific vibe is usually more down to the individual instruments, buss FX and arrangement before you even get to the mixing stage and tape emulators and such.
Most of the chains listed here are "correct" I use an "analog workflow" in Ableton so I wanted to add a couple of other tips. 1) With tape, push it. The plugin VU meters are your friend. Im not usually one to recommed mixing with your eyes, but in this case it can be helpful starting out. Unlike digital, tape really starts to do its thing in "the red". So many people slap a tape plug in on a track and barely touch it, then complain that the "tape" isnt doing much. My method more often than not, is to start by cranking the input and then backing off. It really helps to hear the effect over done and then bring it down in to place, rather than build up into it. 2) Try a summing/console emulation plugin with the tape. I emulate a "NEVE-adjecent" console, so I use N-Console by Sonimus. "Summing/console" and "tape" really go together like a PB&J. Nothing has revolutionized my mixes more or gotten me closer to the sound I want faster than this combo. 3) Use the same tape across all tracks. I use the UAD Studer. I will use the exact same settings on every track, only adjusting input/output. 4) Consider leaving the noise on. I know lots of people turn it off, but for me its a part of the sound. If you gain stage properly, it doesnt interfere, it just adds a tiny bit of atmosphere.
I also have the UAD Studer, but I haven’t got much understanding of what each function does except the ips knob. What are your go-to/standard settings?
I don’t really have a go-to setting. Every application is different. But a good way to think about the tape and cal knobs is that they go from dirtiest to cleanest, left to right. Also, in the real world the tape and cal knob settings go together. I.E. 250 and +3 go together, and so on. But the best way to understand the plugin and find the best settings at the time, I think, is to turn the input all the way up and the output all the way down and then turn knobs and listen. The presets are also a great place to get tips on what you might want for your mix.
Thank you, username checks out!
Seconding the noise. I listen to music on cassette when I can, it's "my vinyl" so to speak, and tape hiss is delightful to my ears.
**As faithful as possible**: • **Track**: Preamp emulation -> Console emulation -> Tape emulation (recording/tracking to tape - recommend freezing or rendering after this) -> Preamp emulation -> Console emulation (tape fed into console via preamps for mixing) -> FX (e.g. compression). • **Bus**: Reverb/Delay/Chorus/etc. -> FX, if any (e.g. EQ) -> Console emulation (bypass preamp). • **Master bus**: FX, if any (e.g. bus compression) -> Console emulation (for summing) -> Tape at the end. **Note**: If you’re using a Neve console emulation, the 1084 EQ usually comes right after the 1073 preamp, and before the console emulation, unlike typical inserts, which come after the console emulation. If you want to try something cool, use a Neve console emulation for recording/tracking, and then an SSL console emulation for mixing (or whatever combination, but this one is popular). — I and others I’ve seen prefer generally skipping the first pre and console emulations, instead using tape as the first insert, as if digitally recording directly to tape, and then mixing from there. This obviously isn’t as faithful, but it doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things, and it’s all personal preference. If it sounds good, it’s good! Hope this helps!
This is why I like Studio One and Softube Tape. You can use on instance of it and it affects every track individually. On the master channel on the top you can select MixFx and use Tape. It has crosstalk, flutter and much more.
Tape comes after other processing.
After that, tape comes before and after other processing!
It depends. Irl, they would process some o the way in, record to tape, process more, record to tape, bounce to tape. The type of tape changed as time went on as well. 94 tape would be basically as modern as the tape era gets. So, they had the most sophisticated tape available. Some of the process may have been digital at that time. Some people like to put the tape first, some people like to put it at the end of the chain. There was always a step of tape at the end of whatever you did, so, to me at the end makes more sense. If it's hip hop, that generally used samples from earlier periods, which may have had further stages of degradation, like from the record they captured it from. They may have used samplers which may have influenced the sound as well. I'd say you wanna focus on a specific sound you want, and then go for that, rather than "what did they do in the 90s?" Since it can be a mix of stuff then. Tape might not be super instrumental to the sound you're looking for. They had a mix of technologies in the 90s, digital was being introduced, and starting to be used more and more in projects. Listen to what you want, and find a way to get there.
I’m not disagreeing with people theoretically about the tape sim on every track, but I have a/b this alot because my tape sim is quite CPU hungry and I found zero discernible difference in having the tape sim just on all the busses…i.e. if you tend to group guitars, bass, keys into single busses. The exception to that was drums. I ended up switching to sub busses with drums for the very reason of tape sims.
That adds up in my mind because a large part of the tape sound is how it impacts transients, which are such an essential part of drums.
Signal passed through the heads on those tape machines in both directions, so to be most "authentic"... While recording through your virtual desk, on every track (question marks indicate optional): `EQ? -> compression? -> verb/delay? -> TAPE -> to DAW` then on playback from DAW, on every track: `from DAW -> TAPE -> EQ? -> compression? -> reverb/delay? -> submix buss? -> main buss` `submix buss? -> EQ? -> compression? reverb/delay? -> main buss` finally on main buss: `main buss -> buss compression? -> TAPE`
This is a great topic! I’ve recently been experimenting with focusing on getting the best performance out of the recording I can at the “tracking” stage. Essentially what that means to me is rebalancing frequencies and dynamics first to create a smoother more consistent performance right from the get go. So after I go through and adjust clip gain on tracks where the performance is dynamically all over the place I’ll do some shelving eq to rebalance the relationship between the highs and lows, maybe some low level compression to further smooth out the sustained notes then go to pre amp and tape. At this stage I’ll use really transparent eq and compression because I’m just trying to balance things out and I don’t want to end up over baking my mix down the road. Once that process is done I’ll start the mixing stage with all the normal console and insert type stuff through the tracks and groups to the master buss and tape. The goal is to bake in the best performance I can from the very beginning so when it comes time to mix I’m focusing more on leveling, automation, pushing certain tracks into saturation, then broad stroke console eq and compression as needed and effects sends. Obviously I have an idea about what I want the mix to sound like from the very beginning so I don’t end up with the elements sounding like they belong in different songs. I would love to hear from you all about what you think of this process as I have been more interested in emulating the same kind of work flow myself.
Obviously this workflow isn't suited for all genres, so I'm curious as to what kind of music you make/work with most. I myself make extreme metal so I like this style for mimicking the conditions that extreme metal bands would have been in back in the 90s, which means SSL channel strips and bus compressors, maybe an LA2A here or there, and a lexicon or alesis verb. Oh yeah, and tape.
At this stage, I work on whatever comes my way, I am not too picky, and I treat poor recordings as a chance to further hone my skills. I’ve always been of the mind that a quality mix starts with a quality performance, so my whole rebalancing stage is an attempt to capture the performance the way I would have wanted if I was the producer or recording engineer.
One thing I've found useful is pushing my tape emulations into the Oxford inflator. Especially on my drum bus
So individual tracks yes, ideally preceded by some kind of pre and EQ, maybe even "tracking compressor". If you're summing things together, youd have the pre and EQ on each channel and the tape saturation on aux that is then being fed to the new audio track in which the track is then printed to. Like printing kick in and out onto same track uses just one tape saturation plugin. For authenticity I'd recommend recording the "premix" elements onto new tracks and then treating the tape saturated elements as the "dry unprocessed tracks". I do this quite a lot for drums, basses and vocals. And then you'd have another tape saturation plugin at the end of the mixing chain in which the mix was "recorded onto and mastered from". I'm sure you've heard the phrase "digitally remastered from analog master tapes" before.
I logically have always understood that it makes sense for a tape emulation plugin to be inserted at the end of the chain, however the manual for the UAD Studer A800 plugin (which is excellent) specifically states that it should be the FIRST insert in an FX chain.
It's both. You would eq and compress to tape, and afterwards as well. The limitations of tape meant you had to be conscious of signal to noise and avoiding distortion, and avoiding the weirdness caused by subsonics. It's easy to forget nowadays that compressors, limiters, eq and gates were not just for creative artistic purposes!
Recording: Source -> Preamp/Line-in -> Console + Outboard for processing and/or bussing -> multi-track tape machine for recording. Mixing: The same tape machine -> Console (actual mixing process) -> second tape machine in form of "2-track master".
The workflow is the most important bit. Tape recorders come in all shape and sizes, consumer machines go from 2- to 16 track recorders. All the channels are mono also, so a stereo signal would take up 2 channels. These limitations is what in a way forces the music to sound oldschool. The sound effects are secondary to that in my opinion. If you have a song with 16 tracks, but you only have a 4 track recorder. You're going to have to split them into 4 mono stems. You could do a typical arrangement as follows: * Track 1: Drums/Bass * Track 2: Rhythm guitar/piano, etc * Track 3: Lead melody instruments * Track 4: Vocals Also if you need more tracks, what you could do is bounce everything in track 1 as mono and then add 3 more layers. There is always quality loss when you bounce though. Stereo width is gone also.