No Professional analog 1/2 track (stereo) multitracks built after 1995. There is one company bringing out a new quarter inch 1/2 track. But it won't play back all those commercially released 4 track 1/4 inch 7.5 ips tapes. Not 100% sure though. But the analog multitrack market has been dead for 24 years. For new machines. Advice. If you want your digtial recordings to sound more analog or more professional DO NOT push the input level to just at 0 dbfs. We pros know that in 24 bit converts 0VU is equal to -18dbfs RMS (not peak). All DACs are analog until the conversion. They have analog preamps and they have a sweet spot. -18 dbfs RMS is this sweet spot. (In Europe it's - 20 dbfs RMS) At this sweet spot everthing will sound better: Best stereo imaging, lowest distortion, etc. And just as important, don't peak over - 6 dbfs (peak, not RMS.)
I think we are forgeting something here. Most amateurs like to eternally bounce. And as you know most professional multi-tracks cannot internally bounce without feedback and distortion because of the way they are designed. multitracks aimed at the semi-pro and amature market I guess would be differnet and can internally bounce. Even the professional machines that can internally bounce can't bounce on adjacent tracks. Not 1-4 bounced to 5. More like 1- 4 bounced to 8.
Don't know for sure but Niagra doesn't makes analog machines anymore. It's all digital. There were the first to introduce a 4 head digital machine. This would allow you to hear what was coming off the playback head as you were recording your dialogue. So now you would know with out any doubt if the dialogue was actually being recorded. Just like you used to with an analogue three head Niagra.
I'm speed reading the 8 pages before a meeting, so forgive if this is off base or been covered but... If you want to make your digital recordings sound 'better' or 'analog' there is no plugin that is truly going to do it for you, and a simple bounce to tape isn't really the answer either. You have to truly 'get out of the box.' A plug-in will try to digitally recreate the color of a particular large format board, outboard gear or tape, but it is still applying it to the in-the-box summing of a ProTools or whatever DAW software. It's like thinking that Instagram filters are the same as a professional photographer using a specific film stock, lenses and lighting. It will mimck the effect but will never be the same depth. Same with actually bouncing to tape. Yes, now you got the actual tape color and characteristics, but it's still only accepting the digitally summed tracks/stems, which ProTools etc is pretty mediocre at doing. IMO, if you truly want the space and separation to make your tracks sound bigger and more expansive, and get the most mileage from that tape bounce, you have to get out of the box. Bounce down your stems and take them to a large professional studio that has a large format commercial board, like a real SSL or Neve console. The more tracks the better, as you don't have to minimize the number of stems to squeeze them into a board with fewer tracks. Run your mixed stems through that board with everything set to zero, just so you get the color of the board circuitry, and listen to your tracks explode. The stereo image with get so much wider you'll hardly believe it, as will the separation between the tracks. THEN you can run it to tape, and get the additional tape benefits before re-digitizing it. The cost these days is surprisingly small. You've already saved a ton recording and mixing everything yourself in the box. For a few hundred dollars and a just a few hours of big commercial studio time, you can improve those tracks by a lot and get most of the benefits of the large format gear on the back end. I really believe that is better spent money than going out and buying your own tape machine and expecting it to magically fix a mix that is completely in the box up to the tape transfer process.
Or plug-in plus hardware that can do 24 tracks of multi-track 7.5 or 15 IPS tape emulation... Oxide Tape Recorder | UAD Audio Plugins | Universal Audio
Do I look like the wise Oracle of Delphi to you dude? That was very rude. That fat engineer apologizes intensely with much love. Ahhh....mmmmm....I really don't know. And I should.
Still doesn't sound like analog..All they do is add: distortion, wow flutter, and alter the frequency response. All you end up with is a castrated digital. If those emulation devices actually worked as advertised we could all throw out are analog reel to reel machine.. And no amount of simulation can duplicate the detail of analog tape. We used the plugin on a ADAT project a few months ago. Along with tube emulators. The whole studio got sucked into a worm hole. No really. Look into the plugins. They are not bad.
Yes. That's the ticket. But it is a pro recorder designed for field use. For recording dialog and sound effects for movies. They are $2 000 USD and up.
You can get great stereo separation mixing ITB. But stay away from transformless boards like the SSL. We own two. The SLL 4064 G+ G. They are good but the transformerless boards have a neutral rather cold sound. Very good but with no personality. What he needs is a good old Trident mixer from 1976. With hundreds of transformers. Lots of personality in those mixers.
Digital can sound great if people stop recording so hot. You want to aim for - 18 dbfs RMS (average not peak) and not peak over - 6 dbfs PEAK. That will make your digital sound way better than running through some analog board. Although I find mixing trough an analog board doesn't hurt.
Can I join the discussion? (Oh no not that guy again, some member says pulling the hair from his head..) Mmmm....Otari...It's getting harder and harder to get parts for our Otari MX-80, 2 inch 32 track. And we have (ex-employee) two of them. You would surprised at how many Pop, Rock and R&B artists used two of these beasts synchronized together on records that you know and love and some you hoped you would never ever hear again. I would say go and find a nice Scully 284-12 1 inch 12 track but it's more of a museum piece now. I hear some brave warriors have restored one to fully working order. Good luck gentlemen. I hope it holds up! There was a nice Fostex quarter inch 8 track reel to reel that used Dolby C. Maybe you can find one Ebay. Or you can get a nice Tascam 38 1/2 inch 8 track. 40 - 20 000 hz +-3db measured at 0VU.* It has some Pro refurbished warranty on it. ONLY $1500 + $220 shipping. Well it's on Ebay now. Yes I know it's an old thread but maybe someone else might want the thing. And I sure that it will work better than the one we had to throw out over the summer. The 38 was giving my Uncle Jack attuide. Tape was great bit ohh what pain. * two years ago or so the professional industry announced that +3VU is now 0VU. Don't ask me. So we were all supposed to go and recalibrate every VU meter we had. I think we did. If sounds bizarre to most on this thread....I agree. I just report the news, I don't make it.
I do not recommend any Fostex analog machine. Built cheap, no parts, very prone to fail. Tascams range from very good, to excellent. .The 38 is a good machine if they were maintained. Most demo grade prosumer machines got ran hard, and ran till they broke. Scully is superb, but quirky. The 12 track is rare exotica, an 8 track much more common. Yes, Otari parts are getting harder to source for the less common models.
Boston's Tom Scholz uses tow 12 track Scully's to record his albums even the latest one. I don't know what he uses to mix down. He has always stated that he doesn't use digital recorders, computers or ProTools but I don't believe him at least for the last two Boston's albums.
Agreed. Although some people spoke highly of the Fostex quarter inch 8 track......Problem is....I can't find them....It is like Buffy The Vampire Slayer. Biggest selling television show on DVD world wide. (Citation needed) And yet I can't anyone that watched the show. Lucky for us the Otari was built like a tank but the more you put things together there they fall apart. We can substitute similar parts from other machines and we got the heads recently relapped by JDF Magnetics. The thing is beside a Stephens no other manufacturer built a 2 inch 32 track. Tascam did but there 32 track was abysmal. And the other one was the MCI 3 inch 32 track prototype. That went nowhere and would be no use to the studio anyway. Thousands of albums were recorded on the Scully 284-12. Yet I can only name two. Gees that weird. If the record company has all these albums recorded on the 1 inch 12 track what do they do? Fortunately some smart people have come up with a clever solution. A 2 inch head stack with a 1 inch 12 track playback head on it. You can mount that on any two inch 24 track. The 38 currently on Ebay is in great condition. But I didn't see a Head Report. And I tell everyone NO HEAD REPORT NO DEAL. The Tascam units are O.K. Very well built. We do get the occasional 1 inch 16, or even 1/2 inch 16 track which we cannot transfer. We have a lot of different formats. My Uncle has a lot of different 2, 1 and 1/2 inch head stacks but he doesn't have every format. But I think when people want the analog tape sound they want that big 2 inch 24 track sound. It's the sound you get from maxing out the 2 inch when you are recording drums. The way a 2 inch 16/24 track overloads. A half inch 8 track will not be the same. You will get that analog tape sound but not that big 2 inch sound.
I read about the making of Third Stage. Maybe the demo was done on a Scully 284-12 but from what I read he had two analog 2 inch 24 track machines synchronized together. He was displeased with the digital synchronizer. Tom felt (despite time code which is accurate to 1/30th of a second) that only triggering them manually would get the desired outcome. But I guess they were two Scully 284-12. 22 tracks I guess would be enough. (Two tracks lost to synchronization pulse.) But Third Stage has piercing highs that appear to go right up to 20 khz. The Scully 284-12 had a frequency response that dropped sharply after 16 khz. So it confuses me. Why are they so many conflicting stories about the recording of the first album. On the vinyl record I got back in 1978 it said he built his own 16 track. No mention of a Scully 1 inch 12. - On the remastered CD same thing. - Then I hear that only 12 tracks worked on his 16 track. - then I hear he used two synchronized Scully 284-12s. Funny he never mentions a Scully 1 inch 12 track. Or do the fan sites get better information?
I read it on his website and I think it's also on the linear notes of Don't Look Back. I've read so many things about the recording of Boston's album that it's hard to remember where I read what.
One company. Mechlabor But you are looking at $2500 at least. You do get a warranty. But keep in mind these reel to reel machines are the professional quarter inch half track. And they will demand a blood sacrifice. LOL Seriously; you won't be able to play back any of the quarter inch quarter track tapes you have at current on the machine. All those tapes sold during the 60's and 70's won't play on the machine shown. Great machine though. Every consumer reel to reel you would buy would be inferior to the Meclabor. You could go looking for a half inch half track Ampex but the tape cost will kill you.
Despite the roll off after 16khz I would take a Ampex 300-8 over a Pro Tools setup any day. And throw in a Trident board as well. Please! Digital is great. 20 - 20 000 hz +-1db, S/N 118 db is now the standard. And for next to nothing. But if I am gonna mix 48 tracks I would rather have a SLL4064 E / G+ (we sold ours) than move a mouse around on some fake mixer on a monitor. And as for a Pro Tools setup being superior to a well built analog mutitrack like the Studer 800, Ampex ATR124 or the Otari MTR-90.....With Dolby SR any of these analog multitracks running at 15 ips (best for bass) will reach 100 db signal to noise ratio (A weighted). That is 16 bit quality right there. And if you overload the tape the sound doesn't fall to ****. Wow and flutter would be around 0.03 - 0.04 %. More than is needed. Those analog machines had a sound no emulation software can match. Digital is great but this idea that analog machines sounded crappy is ridiculous. Unless you purchased a Tascam 2 inch 32 track recorder. They were good 32 track recorders but ahhh....this wasn't one of them.
No! No! You need to go out and find a used Scully 284-8. There! That is some authentic 60's 8 track sound for you. LOL. Seriously, stick to no less than 8 tracks. 4 is to small. The Tascam DP-03 had 8 tracks and for under $500. But it's digital. Your recordings will only sound as good as the musician and singer recording. Stay away from cassette 8 tracks. Your best bet would be a used half inch 8 track. Preferably one that has been completely restored. New heads, etc. A Half inch 8 track will give your pro sound without the big pro cost.
Hey, I'm trying to look for an Ampex 440-8 1" for around $3000-$4500. Is that possible? What do you think about this deck? I'm an up and coming singer-songwriter based around Birmingham, Alabama, and I want one for my next recording studio. I already have a recording studio, and have a nice digital setup, but if the band I'm in's album succeeds with mechanical (buying albums via CD or vinyl) sales, I'm going to build my own custom analog-based studio. My album is going to be very different, and maybe, the Lord willing, I can get a good cult following. Ryan
and WAY hard to edit! Even Mobile Fidelity and John Eargle and so on changed over to digital. And yeah if you want that analog sound, some folks do a stage when they dump to tape and then A/D from that. I'd think the trick is to have good A/D converters.
