What is the difference between tape-width?
- Thread starter salida
- Start date
Ok. does that mean that you must have at least 2-inch tapes to make pro recordings?
Ok. does that mean that you must have at least 2-inch tapes to make pro recordings? Or do the smaller tapes sound good too?
Which sizes can a Fostex b-16 use?
Ok. does that mean that you must have at least 2-inch tapes to make pro recordings? Or do the smaller tapes sound good too?
Which sizes can a Fostex b-16 use?
jpmorris
Tape Wolf
salida said:
Depends what decade you live in. 2" 16-track was used on 'Dark Side of the Moon' and lots of other albums from that era. It was a natural extension of 1" 8-track which was introduced in the mid-60s and used on things like 'Court of the Crimson King', 'In A Gadda-Da-Vida', 'Atom Heart Mother' and some of the very early Genesis albums, I think. If I was overflowing with money, I'd get one of these myself. You don't need noise reduction with this format.
I don't know of any commercial albums done on 1" 16-track but it was a fairly popular 'small' format. ITAM, Otari and Tascam made machines which used it.
Use noise reduction or not, depending on how you feel.
Now 1/2" 16-track was cheap enough to be wildly popular. Lots of small studios used it on various popular albums. Enya used a Fostex E-16, as did many other people... in fact I think she still does. Most of Bill Nelson's albums were done on the B-16. Don't know what he uses now.
1/2" 16-track machines have built-in noise reduction.
B
Beck
Guest
Crosby, Stills Nash & Young "American Dream" on Nash's Fostex E-16.
jpmorris said:
Interesting side note; Everything on "Dark Side" was second generation. As far as 1/2 goes, Boston's first album was done on a TSR-8. I suspect there was a lot of high end outboard gear used as well, but still it goes to show that a pro album can be, at least in part, recorded on a recorder that for the most part was intended for the home market.
B
Beck
Guest
Boston would be the 80-8, so I've heard, as the TSR-8 wasn't made yet in 1976. But, to be accurate, according to Scholz he started with a Scully 12-track in his basement, but the 80-8 may have been in there somewhere because I keep hearing about it. Anyway, quite a music revolution he created with simple equipment. 
I bought this issue of Musician shortly after “Third Stage” was released. It is very bad news (any Scholz interview is) for people who think they can purchase success with the latest wiz-bang at the local music store.
I bought this issue of Musician shortly after “Third Stage” was released. It is very bad news (any Scholz interview is) for people who think they can purchase success with the latest wiz-bang at the local music store.
Last edited:
Chris Shaeffer
Peavey ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Beck's sig sums it up nicely.
In my experience, the skill and equipment it takes to get a "pro sound" our of a 2" machine is *really* difficult for a home recordist to achieve. In the grand scheme of things, a 1/2" 16 is probably going to give you more than enough quality. Your room, mics, preamps, mixer, etc. are likely more of a bottleneck than the 1/2" 16.
If you dropped a 2" 24 into that same setup it would certainly sound better, but it still wouldn't necessarily sound "pro."
My experience is also that a 1/2" 16 can sound better in the end than a 1/2" 8- IF you are bouncing tracks on the 8. 16 gives me enough room that I don't have to bounce, or I bounce *much* less, so the over all integrity of the recording stays higer despite the smaller track width.
The 1/2" 8 is sweet, though.
Take care,
Chris
In my experience, the skill and equipment it takes to get a "pro sound" our of a 2" machine is *really* difficult for a home recordist to achieve. In the grand scheme of things, a 1/2" 16 is probably going to give you more than enough quality. Your room, mics, preamps, mixer, etc. are likely more of a bottleneck than the 1/2" 16.
If you dropped a 2" 24 into that same setup it would certainly sound better, but it still wouldn't necessarily sound "pro."
My experience is also that a 1/2" 16 can sound better in the end than a 1/2" 8- IF you are bouncing tracks on the 8. 16 gives me enough room that I don't have to bounce, or I bounce *much* less, so the over all integrity of the recording stays higer despite the smaller track width.
The 1/2" 8 is sweet, though.
Take care,
Chris
Switching
I am switching from a digi001 Protools set-up. I have a very big room with cool ambience. I have always thought that digi001 was the only really cheap way to give me full control over what I record. But I´m lacking a bit of punch in my recordings. It´s like there´s more output to pro recordings and I´m guessing that it is due to bad converting from the digi001. That´s one of the reasons I´m switching to analog because I hope it will not lose any sound on the way to tape.
How should i gain the signals best? Through a mixing console or try some other pre-amp solution?
I love slightly distorted signals esp. on drums which has been virtualy impossible with the digi setup...
I am switching from a digi001 Protools set-up. I have a very big room with cool ambience. I have always thought that digi001 was the only really cheap way to give me full control over what I record. But I´m lacking a bit of punch in my recordings. It´s like there´s more output to pro recordings and I´m guessing that it is due to bad converting from the digi001. That´s one of the reasons I´m switching to analog because I hope it will not lose any sound on the way to tape.
How should i gain the signals best? Through a mixing console or try some other pre-amp solution?
I love slightly distorted signals esp. on drums which has been virtualy impossible with the digi setup...
B
Beck
Guest
Ok, this is where I saw it... Boston and the 80-8.
"Classic groups of the mid-70s like Boston and Kansas recorded hit albums using the 80-8 recorder."
From http://www.tascam.com/Company.html
"Classic groups of the mid-70s like Boston and Kansas recorded hit albums using the 80-8 recorder."
From http://www.tascam.com/Company.html
The Ghost of FM
Banned
I'm not intimately familiar with the 001 but, if you're having problems with capturing dynamics, that is a problem that could migrate along with your change over to analog in that minding your levels and making proper use of compression is an engineering skill that is applicable to both disciplines.
Recording to analog will give you more headroom without noticeable clipping on wider format tape machines and especially so on those that do not apply noise reduction like dbx that allow for traditional analog soft clipping into the upper signal levels above 0vu on the meters but, if you're not careful, you can still screw up your punch and dynamics by not adjusting your compressor settings and recording levels.
Switching to analog should be done by those who are craving the sonic character that true analog can bring in terms of the unique frequency response curves that vary from machine to machine along with their thicker sound canvas that captures more detail at the higher end formats of track width and speed. It can also be a far reliable format of archiving your recording for lifetime access without running into the current problems of digital formats which can change like the weather and leave you and your data files like a beggar in the desert.
Cheers!
Punch
I realize that minding your dynamics when recording is important both in Digital AND analog recording. But getting a punchy drum sound and vocals has been a problem for me and I find that compressing drums before recording onto tape (or computer for that matter) is very difficult due to attack and release settings. I often end up killing whatever punch is there when I set the attack to react right away... This problem with recording with enough punch has not only occurred on my homestudio recordings. I also recorded in a pro studio onto a Lyrec 24 track analog using very expensive mic´s. That´s why I want an analog recorder of my own so that I can keep trying over and over again without having to pay 100 bucks an hour in some fancy studio... I love the drum sound on Primus "the brown album" it was recorded onto tape by Les Claypool "the bassplayer" himself and mixed to. It has the punch of any pro record on every instrument...
I realize that minding your dynamics when recording is important both in Digital AND analog recording. But getting a punchy drum sound and vocals has been a problem for me and I find that compressing drums before recording onto tape (or computer for that matter) is very difficult due to attack and release settings. I often end up killing whatever punch is there when I set the attack to react right away... This problem with recording with enough punch has not only occurred on my homestudio recordings. I also recorded in a pro studio onto a Lyrec 24 track analog using very expensive mic´s. That´s why I want an analog recorder of my own so that I can keep trying over and over again without having to pay 100 bucks an hour in some fancy studio... I love the drum sound on Primus "the brown album" it was recorded onto tape by Les Claypool "the bassplayer" himself and mixed to. It has the punch of any pro record on every instrument...
monty
Banned
Come on now, you didn't say WHICH desert.The Ghost of FM said:I'm not intimately familiar with the 001 but, if you're having problems with capturing dynamics, that is a problem that could migrate along with your change over to analog in that minding your levels and making proper use of compression is an engineering skill that is applicable to both disciplines.
Recording to analog will give you more headroom without noticeable clipping on wider format tape machines and especially so on those that do not apply noise reduction like dbx that allow for traditional analog soft clipping into the upper signal levels above 0vu on the meters but, if you're not careful, you can still screw up your punch and dynamics by not adjusting your compressor settings and recording levels.
Switching to analog should be done by those who are craving the sonic character that true analog can bring in terms of the unique frequency response curves that vary from machine to machine along with their thicker sound canvas that captures more detail at the higher end formats of track width and speed. It can also be a far reliable format of archiving your recording for lifetime access without running into the current problems of digital formats which can change like the weather and leave you and your data files like a beggar in the desert.
Cheers!
Last edited:
Good Friend
New member
primus
I thought rancho relaxo was a digital studio? I thought i read at the time primus was using digital because it was cheaper.
I thought rancho relaxo was a digital studio? I thought i read at the time primus was using digital because it was cheaper.
The Ghost of FM
Banned
Why, the desert of your mind, of course!monty said:Come on now, you didn't say WHICH desert.
