PhilCollins' But Seriously album was recorded and mixed that way,drums and bass guitar were tracked to analogue and the rest was tracked to Sony digital. For the mix down both the analogue tape deck and the Sony DASH deck were syncronized (I don't know if they used a SMPTE code to syncronize) and that mix ended on a Sony PCM 1630 stereo master recorder. And that was before the Pro Tools era.
Mmmm....It is one of those analog things. On the other hand the famous (but not to well known) Stephen's 2 inch 40 track had to be run at 30 ips to get it's better than 24 track performance. Well in 1973 anyway. And yet managed 40 - 20 000 hz +-2db! Whereas all the 24 track machines of the day (including the famed Studer A800) would get their bass response castrated at 50 hz - 2db if they dared run their machines at 30 ips. Biazzare huh? Did you know the Stephen's multitracks had only three amplification stages from the input to the output. John Stephen's took a look at the other competition and wondered why there was so much junk inside. Any Stephen's 2 inch 40 track could run for three hours on one 12 volt car battery. And only 136 pounds.
The PCM 1630 was a A/D converter. ($5 000) You couldn't record anything to it. You needed one of those horrible 3/4 inch video machines to record the data from a dreaded: 1600, 1610 or a 1630. It could have been used in conjunction with the 3/4 inch pro video deck (Yeuck!!) but more likely a more expensive Sony PCM 3302 stereo master recorder was used. Early digital is confusing and mysterious. I have worked with it for years and I find it so! The analog machine would be a slave to the DASH tape machine master since the speed would be perfect on the digital machine. Synchronization code would go on track 24 of the two inch tape. Sync code always goes on the last track. Sometimes there might even be a guard track between the Sync code and the music tracks. A blank Track 23. This would prevent bleed through of the synchronization code (BEEP! I said, BEEP!!!) onto the music tracks. Just one of the many pitfalls of analog. With digital there is no leakage between tracks. Everytime you changed the data in any way you had to make a new tape. And yes, errors crept in. Need to add some EQ to your digital 3/4 tape. New tape! Do some editing. NEW TAPE! Just add the sub code for the tracks. NEW TAPE! Remove some clicks...NEW TAPE! The generations would pile up. Steve always kept his digital generations to an absolute minimum. If you can do all your editing and EQ on the editor then transfer the new data to 3/4 tape. Good luck. Julius Caesar fought an illegal war in Gaul just to stop this silly digital generation thing.
No argument there. But the Stephens 2 inch 40 track was only 136 pounds. And could run for three hours on one 12 volt car battery. But that is still damn heavy. Yes.....Agreed.
I would stick to no less than a half inch 8 track. And run it at the fastest speed and pray a lot. And don't buy used tape. I know they sell used reel to reel tape and it is an option but if you DON'T want dropouts and other problems only buy new tape. Clean and demagnetize your machine every 10 hours of use. Best advice. Yes they are some o.k. 1/2 inch 16 tracks and 1/4 inch 8 tracks but I wouldn't go there. Check Ebay. Make sure the machine you are buying is restored. Good luck. GET A HEAD REPORT.
Ahhhhhh! (Pardon me just come from criminal courts) I was talking about recording in digital. For analog we know what to do. On the other hand a lot of people don't know what they are doing when it comes to digital. No typo. Always record at 15 ips for killer bass on analog. Unless you have a modern late 80's 2 inch 16 track then 30 ips could be an option. The Studer A800 - 24 was a wicked mofo 2 inch 24 track back in 1973. It is the father of modern pro logic multitracks. Still is pretty good. Most sought after multitrack along with the A827. In 1973 all the competition was pretty much: 40 - 20 000 hz +-2 db @ 15 ips. Signal to noise ratio of 64 'A' weighted. Whereas the Studer A800 - 24 was: 30 - 20 000 hz +-2db @ 15 ips Signal to noise ratio of 66 db 'A' Weighted @15ips And a mo-fo 70 db 'A' weighted @ 30 ips. Unfortunately like all the other 2 inch 24 tracks it bottomed out at 50 hz - 2db @ 30ips. All the specs I have posted on here are from the original manuals tested with the suggested tapes. For example the Stephens 2 inch 40 will perform to spec with the scotch 205 / 206. A modern tape will make the Stephen's underperform like a Ampex 300-4 from 1964.
A few years ago in Paris, France a studio just threw out all their DASH tape machines in the garbage. Cheap.....Even free if you know where to look.
Yep. Record a flute on DBX Type 2 Cassette multitrack and you will see how bad it sounds... Tascam had a model that used Dolby C. Much better choice. But without any form of NR most cassette 4 track have a signal to noise ratio of 54 - 55 db A weighted. So Dolby C would only bring it up to 70 db. Still I think this is good enough.
Well not everybody. Maybe 97.7857 % but not everyone. LOL LOL I like digital. What I put in I get out unchanged. For my home purposes I prefer digital. But from my years of studio work most of the analog stuff sounds better. I find it is easier to mix from a 2 inch 24 track analog tape then from mixing from a Pro Tools 24/96 files. But that is my opinion.
And were high maintenance drama queens, which couldn't be relied on. When they worked, they were great. Many had problems.
Why do you find easier to mix from a 2" 24 track analogue tape than from ProTools 24/96? Pro Tool is supposed to be prefered by audio engineers because its felixibility and easy of use.
I find the better sound of analog makes mixing easier. You don't need as much Eq or any at all on the tracks. Maybe it is the natural compression that happens with analog tape that makes the instruments stand out in the mix. Who knows. I find it easier.
Dolby SR is not a cassette NR. Won't happen. 8 tracks on a cassette, horrible. And this machine would have to work with the available new tape, type 1 is what there is.
1995 was the last year for new analog multitracks. Plenty of good tape machines in the used market. But digital doesn't have the problem it had back in the 80's. Today's digital converters sound great. And honestly, most audio engineers under 35 will have trouble getting a band onto just 8 tracks. They are used to a limitless track count. Having drums on 20 tracks and dozens of stereo keyboards. Spoiled is the word. In my day (1985) 24 tracks was for the big boys only. And digital for the big studios with massive budgets. If you had a half inch 8 track and a 16 channel mixer back in 1985 you were doing well. Now every other Mother's son has more that 100 tracks of 24/192 in their basement studio. Problem is that there is no learning curve today. When I started back in 1983 all I had was a Tascam 4 track and a 6 channel radio Shack mixer and some cheap mikes and noisy reverb unit. Then I went to 8 track cassette, and then to 8 track minidisk. And then two ADATs (16 tracks) with a used 24 channel mixer. And 3 head Nak to mix it down. During the 1984 - 1995 period I worked many demos for bands. I knew the right way to use a 4 track. For example, your typical 4 piece Rock band: TRK 1: drums TRK 2: bass TRK 3: lead and rhythm guitars TRK 4: Vocals. Solo usually punched in the middle. No singing at that point. Or for a three piece: TRK 1: drums TRK 2: bass TRK 3: guitar TRK 4: Vocals. Solo punched in Where everyone was bouncing down just to get stereo drums. It's a demo dude! Most 4 tracks were a stereo mix down of the band (TRK 1 and 2), a vocal on 3 and Midi on 4. Working with just 8 tracks is an art. Many compromises have to be made. You can't have really anything in stero except maybe the drums. If our fellow member can record bands with just 8 tracks then more power to him. I just feel it is too much to ask of a novice young engineer who grew up with 100 tracks. And all the toys of Pro Tools.
Yes I know. I meant that for pros who still transfer and record analog tape, support for Dolby SR and A is still in use. A cassette version of Dolby SR did appear on cassettes - Dolby S. Dolby S appeared on 1 cassette 8 track tape machine. I am not sure if it was a Fostex or a Tascam. But Dolby was very fussy about Licensing it's Dolby S circuit. Any tape machine wanting the Dolby S license had to be up to a certain spec. That is why only three head models got the license. If Dolby S was on your machine it had to be good. Whereas Dolby B,C and DBX type 2 could go on any crap machine. Yes, I agree. No way any company is going to put out any 4 or 8 track cassette machine. And without Type 2 tapes even using an old one would be pointless. You can still buy Type 2 tapes. Not in the millions of units that were sold back in 1986 but you still can get them. They will eventually run out. With the exception of one company who is making a new quarter inch half track machine, new analog machines are dead. No argument there. My thoughts were merely academic sir. If they were to bring them back and if new Type 2 /4 tapes could be made then what improvements could we make? 1. The use of type 4 tapes 2 perhaps a 5 or 7 ips speed 3. Dolby HX Pro 4. Perhaps a new NR circuit. All hypothetical and probably silly on my part. But apparently in 1995 Nakamchi built a cassette 8 track prototype that ran at 5 1/2 ips. Rumored specs: 30 - 17 500 hz +-3db Signal to noise ratio with Dolby C: 74 db A weighted. The story goes that Nackamachi was planning on entering the amateur recording market. Never happened. Sorry but no links to confirm this. The story comes from Uncle Jack and his Nak connection.
Everyone please listen to McLover. He actually knows what he is talking about. Yes, a Studer A800- 24 sounds amazing but a lot of kids today (anyone under 30 LOL ) don't realize how much matience, calibration, alignment, TLC and constant attention these machines require. They are not Plug and play. I WISH ! But no.... And older pre-logic machines can be a nightmare. As much as I love the sound of a good 2 inch 16 track: Studer, 3M, Otari or Ampex. (ATR116..YUM!) I would rather deal with 60 tracks of Pro Tools.
O.k. here goes. If want that classic analog studio sound go all the way to a 1 inch 8 track. A modern (post 1980) 1 inch 8 track machine should give you at least 66 db A weighted S/N ratio without any NR. This would give you the same quality as a 2 inch 16 track. Stay away from enternal bouncing! It may cost more but there is a big jump in quality from a half inch 8 to a 1 inch 8.
Agreed or get a 4 track 1/2" as an alternative. Narrow gauge costs you tape real estate and S/N Ratio. And reliability.
Interesting. Not everyone was in love with the DASH format. There were some well known engineers that hated the sound of the famous Sony PCM 3324 / 3324A. And especially the PCM 3302. The 2 channel version. Maybe some super dude could explain this to me. In 1981 Sony came our with their 3324. 24 tracks of PCM 16 / 44.1 / 48 on 1/2 inch DASH tape running at 45 ips. The track data isn't just placed vertically on the tape like in analog but horizontally as well. So right to left as well as top to bottom. When Sony went to the 48 track version going to 1 inch seemed logical right? Doubling the track count, same tape speed, same sampling rates. But no, the original 1989 Sony PCM 3348 was a 2 inch format. Why? ???? a year or so later the new 3348 was a half inch format. Confused? I am. And in the early 90's the high definition version of the 3348, the 3348HR was still a half inch DASH version. Confused now? I am.....
It was worse than that! LOL According to legend people used to wait around for days for John Stephens to show up to fix their machines. Too complicated for anyone else to repair. So only John could fix one. They were all hand made multitracks and this was the problem. ÀAhhh the joy if it all! Thomas Roy Baker use to synchronize two 40 track Stephen's machines together for 78 tracks to record a Queen record. (two loss to sync pulse). According to Baker his 40 track machines always worked well. John Farr (of ONJ fame) owned a 40 track as well. But other were not so lucky. It is a multitrack....Not a pantsuit. He had one person make the amps, another person the motor, etc. He trained a few people to make each part of the tape machine. These were not made on a factory like an Ampex. No wonder they had isuuses.
I had a Tascam Porta 03, and still have a broken Porta 07..... I now record with Tascam DP24 digital machine or field record on a Sony PCM M10. The thing I wish I could do on digital is turn the tape over and record backwards parts.....not something I would care to mess with on a cheezy cassette machine...... No good options, just ancient used machines that need caps and all kinds of expensive servicing to work properly. A battle for someone else to fight....
