"...metal simply cant be done on an 8-track analog tape machine" Hogwash.
Would you do analog recording ?
- Thread starter grimtraveller
- Start date
"...metal simply cant be done on an 8-track analog tape machine" Hogwash.
I have lots of heavy metal here done on analogue tape machines......sounds great to me....and why can't metal be done on an 8 Track recorder?? most metal bands I see have one or two guitarists, a drummer, a singer and a bass player....I can't see why you could not multi-track that set-up with an 8 track recorder....unless you need 20 tracks just for drums alone........like micing top and bottom of every drum head and cymbol you have...but for a basic setup 8 tracks should be fine...however....I guess I could be wrong......
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I know what BSG is getting it.....he's not just talking about just recording metal, he's pointing out that today's metal is done piecemeal, lots of editing and note-by-note, beat-by-beat inputing...plus, it's dyna,ically processed to the hilt.
That's a PITA on an 8 track tape deck.
Old-school metal is another thing.
That's a PITA on an 8 track tape deck.
Old-school metal is another thing.
Sorry...I mis-understood...
Farview
Well-known member
You don't need 20 tracks for drums, but I normally use 9 for a standard 5 piece kit. I could get rid of the hat and ride mic which would still leave me with 7. 8 tracks isn't going to cut it. I've done 16 tracks with good success, as long as it was documentary style recording. Anything with a bigger production value will need at least 24. Hell, just add keyboards and you are probably over the 16 track mark.
Metal sounds fine on tape, it's the 4 or 8 track limitation that starts to preclude the genre.
Farview
Well-known member
Even when it isn't done piecemeal, in order for it not to sound like a deep purple or black sabbath album from the 70's, it still requires more than 8 tracks. You just need more individual control over the instruments. Everything has to be close miked, so it sounds in-your-face. Everything has to be really bright without getting thin, which is a little hard to pull off with tape, but not impossible with top of the line gear. But it does require a bunch more than 8 tracks.
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
Yes, that's what I meant. With all the stuff they do in modern metal, drum replacement etc., they have to have non-linear editing.
I have a special affection for analogue tape recording as I built my own 8-track reel-to-reel recorder using an old Ferrograph tape deck given to me by a friend. I glued four 2-track heads to the deck, built a mixer, designed circuitry. I was learning about electronics as I went along, re-inventing the wheel, finding out how bias worked, how to achieve speed stability, how to reduce the hum emanating from the motor. Years and years and thousands of hours of work. And I finished it. And it was good. And suddenly digital came along and it was redundant. The irreconcilable conflict between emotion and intellect. Emotion says ANALOGUE, intellect says digital.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I still record our band with an early 2000s Fostex PD-4M digital audio tape machine. Not really analog, per se, but similar logistically.
Not as cool as analog tape, but retro enough to create a high fun factor. These old Fostex machines were used principally to do location recording for TV and film. They were used on a lot of the deck scenes in Titanic. I use 60 minute 8mm computer backup tape as my medium.
Not as cool as analog tape, but retro enough to create a high fun factor. These old Fostex machines were used principally to do location recording for TV and film. They were used on a lot of the deck scenes in Titanic. I use 60 minute 8mm computer backup tape as my medium.
Actually tape really is the only way to go but the biggest problem was/is cost and availability of media. A reel of 2" Ampex 456 used to cost ~$450 for 15 minutes of recording @30IPS. Most sessions required 4 reels for the album and 2x those for backups. Then Ampex got out of the business and sold it to Quantegy who was forced out of business due to digital revolution. Hence, no one was making tape! Quantegy finally came back YEA!!
I used to sync 2 or 3 - Studer or MCI 24 tracks to get higher track counts for overdubs and vocal comps. For heavy metal/hard rock 1-24 track was always dedicated to drums and bass. We would do drum replacements if needed by taking directs from kick, snare, etc and feeding into Linn or Wendel Jr. and blend with original (Unless the producer wanted THAT sound - I still think the Wendel Jr. had some of the BEST sounding Kicks/Snares ). Guitars and bass would be reamped if needed. I still have a TASCAM MS16 - 1" recorder - heads are in pretty good shape - I will sometimes record drums and bass to tape while simultaneously taking the outputs back into my converters - you simply cannot get that phat/warm/punch/driven tone in the digital domain - sure you can get a close mimic.
I agree with many on this thread that recording to tape forces you to plan your tracks better. But as sync technology improved - we got over that as I just discussed. I also think that recording to tape, forces the musicians to create better performances as overdubs in the analog domain were destructive (unless you had many tracks to comp with - usually never the case - except for vocals).
Finally, with respect to the post I am replying to - saying that it is hard to get bright tones with analog - I totally disagree and base that on recordings from the late 70's - 90's.
Cheers
