Nah you are good, It is far from necessary to add distortion and additional dynamic range reduction which is what these algorithms essentially do. I do not use them on my main outs FWIW, As you mention, On the source signal of individual tack basis I find that works for me personally but over everything it just does not do it for me/my wants and needs.
I'm familar with working using tape machines to track and mix (even editing to some extent, What is possible with the medium). So I know tape well enough, There is only a small area between a quality sounding tape mix which is just slightly hot to it crapping out and giving way so all the hard work quite literally sounds like it has fallen apart with a blown out low-end and harsh higher mids with one's noise floor/dynamic range massively compromised. Perhaps the models are getting too accurate if that makes sense, It is something I would expect at some point.
Tape wise I like u-he's SATIN as it is so tweakable and the noise reduction encoding/decoding is great too, I also really like the Dave Hill/Cranesong Phoenix/Phoenix II but that is Pro Tools only, Same with the HEAT algorithm, That was Dave Hill working with Digidesign/Avid. It isn't tape but Non-Linear Summer by Waves is one I dig/use along with saturation here and there. If I we're working with slower tempos and a much, much sparser style then I'd be able to be alot more creative with the "colour" tools, So that is always something that can not be overlooked.
The harder you go into a tape emulation which acts like tape then the more it starts going wonky rapidly frequency wise along with the type of distortion you probably aren't seeking out, So I'd try going in deliberately under-driven along with utilizing pre-EQ to get the areas you wish to get treated whilst avoiding the areas that blow out your mix.
A good overview of areas to keep in check and in mind courtesy of a good old SOS feature article:
https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/analogue-warmth

All the best

Dean

 

Off drinking rum on a beach in the Carribean.

In answer to the the OP: if it don't sound good, don't do it. That's how it works in the real world. If it ain't givin you goosebumps, take it off the bus.

 

A mix with 99% Nebula and Acqua's.

 

Overloud GEM Dopamine just sitting there adds tonal character and punch.

 

I don't process my master bus, so to speak. But I am a big fan of parallel processing. So I tend to do so to my Sub groups and master bus. This way you have ultimate control over how it will effect your song. You can throw a eq on it before or after. Compress it. Pair it with a exciter. Put M/S processing to add some width. It's really the best option I find. Hope this helps.

 

I don't do tape saturation on the master buss unless I'm going for a particular vintage sound. I do like console saturation like the Slate VCC 4K or Waves NLS to add some glue, but saturation will always have the effect of reducing energy when applied to the master buss.

 

I only use frequency selective analog emulation when mastering someone else's stereo mix - if hat treatment seems to be necessary.
On my own mixes I see no sense in that, I do it on the tracks.
When mastering my own mixes I only go for transients, peaks and rms with "hand selected" single banded limiters. Everything else is better to be done in the mix.

 

I can never get anything good from using tape on the master personally. Maybe some on a drum bus.

If your looking too add a little extra to the master bus before you Eq, try using a compressor which has a low cut set to around 180-300hz (so the low end isnt triggering the compressor constantly) and then a ratio of 1.5 - 2.0 (i tend to use 1.8) Then adjust the threshold until you are getting around 1.5 maybe 2.5db GR. then add around 1-2db gain depending on your prefrences

This may add a little glue and sparkle to the mix without it sounding like you have messed with the mix. This is something i do for DnB music so it may not work for everyone.

 

I was asking a question and then you put a disagree rating to me? Really?

 

Nothing I will post can help you but
Magnetic II
If used lightly ( nothing heavy) it can enhance your audio in a pleasant way
You need the plugin at the beginning of the track strip then again at the end of the track strip

Think about how Audio was recorded

1.recorded to tape
2.brought in from tape deck into mixer channel and full mix
3.output back to tape from Mixer

So
Track 1
1.Tape EMU
2.effects
3. Tape Emu

Master Bus
Last FX is Tape Emu

We can not replace a complete Analog Mixing path without a full blown Analog Mixer and Outboard Analog gear
We can Emulate it but can not replaced it.

This is why high end Studios have a $150,000 mixer and $200,000 of outboard gear.

The reason why most studios carry the same outboard gear is so that the Music overall sounds the same in terms of mixing from Studio to Studio.

I have an Allen and Heath GL2400 32 track Analog Mixer and mixing on it is very different than in the Daw, the sound is completely different as the headroom (without clipping) is massive on an analog mixer.

Sadly we do not have access to what the "PROS" have simply due to the size of these mixing hardware equipment requirements.

Happy Mixing.

 

Last edited: Nov 15, 2017

I´ve tried some revered tape emulators and all disapointed me. Never use those ideas-for-sell-more rubbish. Try PSP Vintage Warmer2 in the tracks and Ozone ( for me the best is still Ozone 5 ) on the master. Lately I´ve been using Slate Digital VMR and also like it a lot. And keep experimenting by yourself because these kind of questions may lead to more confusion. Cheers.

 

I personally like Fabfilters Saturn on the master mix buss it will make yer tracks sound pretty amazing

 

You do not need a tape emulation plugin anywhere unless you want it to sound like it was recorded or mastered to tape. Upon the advent of digital recording when all the big studios were mothballing all of their Studers and Ampex machines, every engineer was running around like a headless chicken extolling the clarity of the new technology. Hence, every major album for almost the next ten years was proudly pure digital. In fact it was printed on the CD in three letters called the SPARS code
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_code
telling you whether it was all an all digital recording or not. There wasn't even a hint during this time that we might need to add things like saturation and distortion. CD players and big Hi-Fi were king and digital clarity was worshipped.
The band Yes recorded the first album solely on a DAW in 1994 using Digital Performer and four Macs, and Steinberg introduced the first VST'S in 1996.
So, go back through the billboard charts of the 80's and 90's and almost every classic album listed never saw a tape machine and they still sound great without a tape emulation plugin.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 15, 2017

lol, what? do you have any kind of source for your claims? because I've read and watched documentaries about many albums produced at that time and the majority of them were to tape. The list that wikipedia gives for DDD albums is extremely short, they are certainly NOT "almost every classic album" - and even then those albums got their saturation and distortion from the rest of the analog gear used, like consoles.

I mean I agree that tape isn't needed for a great sound, but your claims are pretty exaggerated and misleading.

 

Tape saturation is code for Fruity Soundgoodizer. That's what ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶k̶i̶d̶s̶ ̶ pro producers are calling it nowadays.

 

Can't speak for Tim's tape presets. I have tried the CDSoundMaster R2R one's, specifically the Wollensak for reducing harshness from distorted guitar tracks, and I love those. Wasn't aware Tim had tape presets out there.

 

You've watched DVD'S and documentaries? I bow to your expertise and when in need of a history lesson will seek you out. My source of information is that I was there. I worked in studios from the late 70's until the early 90's and if you disagree that the advent of digital recording and the impact it had on how the industry operated and that I need to supply facts to support my claim that the days of Multi-track Tape recording were in decline, then it is I who would ask you to supply proof that I am wrong. Major studios eagerly and quickly embraced digital recording and while many great albums were recorded to tape for some years to come, there is no denying that it was soon overtaken by Pro Tools equipped facilities.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2017

Yes, when it comes to interviews, DVDs and documentaries about CLASSIC ALBUMS, there is more substantial information about what was used on classic albums. We're not talking about the average project studio here. Do tell, which classic albums have you worked on?

The link that you provided clearly shows that hit albums made completely on digital were rare, and digital was mostly used for mastering (which makes sense seeing as that's when the CD era began, and until then mastering was confined to vinyl which required a completely different mastering process).

You're saying that "the days of Multi-track Tape recording were in decline", this is another thing that I don't understand. To the best of my knowledge DAWs only hit in the early 90's, and before then (and for a substantial time after) music was completely recorded to multi-track tape - either digital tape or analog. So you're saying that back in the 80's they recorded stuff straight to the computer, without even digital tape? this is a claim I haven't heard yet.

 

Since we're nit-picking, DAT isn't multi-track; just one track, a single bitstream.

Yeah, analog multitrackers were used, but 2" tape was used only as recording medium -- a necessary eV0l, made as transparent as possible. No one, to my [granted, limited] knowledge intentionally saturated it/misbias it/introduced moar wow & flutter/relied on general shittyness of magnetic recording for effect.


Sure, tape tricks were used, but so was sticking sweat socks over a mic -- no one seems to be pimping virtual socks :\

Plenty of analog electronics were/are still used, but tape was just a necessity -- it was a standard, studios had $ sunk into gear & techs were as computer-literate & open to change as my Granny (RIP).

Not saying pro tape gear isn't cool, love it to bits. Just not into watching ̶s̶t̶u̶d̶i̶o̶ ̶h̶e̶n̶t̶a̶i̶ looping gif of rolling tape on my 'puter monitor. Tho you go right ahead -- I won't judge.

 

I've heard a lot of old cats saying that they used to drive the signal to tape to get compression and harmonics, and that engineers used tape bias as a makeshift EQ. Chris Lord-Alge for instance spoke several times about how tape would soft-clip the transients, which is something he misses in digital (in the Audio Legends course he used tape and console emulations on pretty much every track).