Analog 2-track/multitrack?

[Kasey]

"I prefer the real cure. Try analog tape! Invest in a great analog recorder. Your first step is to get a good two-track 1/2" machine. After that, consider using wide-track analog multitrack for the main tracks. To get good analog sound that's better than the most expensive digital, practice your alignment techniques, don't bounce tracks, use wider track widths and higher speeds than you did before. In 2005 it's still cheaper than going state-of-the-art digital with 24 tracks of 96 Khz/24-bit digital audio and 48 outboard world-class converters. Maybe by 2010 the price-performance points will match, if world-class converter prices come down."

so this is a quote from this website: http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule...er_page_id=37/

Its some article from a mastering engineer and he's talking about analog versus digital, obviously. I've been considering going analog (i'm using an ADAT XT20 right now....yea i know, but it was cheap, and i hate using computers for recording).
My thoughts were to get a reel to reel 8 track, then master down to digital. But he's saying the opposite - get a 2 track reel to reel for mastering, and then the next thing to get is 8 track....why? he doesnt explain.

[antispatula]

I think digital users like using tape to master to add a little bit of the color that comes with tape. But if you ask me, mixing digital with analog and vise versa is like mixing oranje juice and milk together......Together, they're......gross.....You get what I mean!

Analog is waaaaaaaaaay more expensive and difficult, but it's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay worth it. It sounds much better, and is SO fun.

[quarterinch]

Originally Posted by Kasey

...But he's saying the opposite - get a 2 track reel to reel for mastering, and then the next thing to get is 8 track....why? he doesnt explain.

You have to start somewhere and he's suggesting get an analog mixdown deck first and then get an analog multi-track second.

Of course, he'd probably also suggest getting both right away and at the same time if one can afford it. I know I would.

[quarterinch]

Originally Posted by antispatula

Analog is waaaaaaaaaay more expensive and difficult...

I know where you're coming from but I feel the opposite based on my experience.

Add up the price of the computer, software, external hardware like AD/DA, and misc. stuff and it's waayyy in the thousands. And that's a nominal rig.

Personally I never got headaches much 'til I started chasing updates, tweaks, crashes, code, locks, tech support.

That's all been replaced with a simple tape recorder. Complete with Fisher-Price sized buttons.

And now the music sounds stupid, crazy so-much-better-I'm-embarrassed great. Like nite and day. Seriously.

I record a ton more. And it's fun as hell.

For around $800.

[Kasey]

it seems to me when you compare price to performace ratios, analog is cheaper. but i still dont get the reason he's suggesting a two track and then a multitrack. it seems like it would make moer sense to get an analog multitrack first and maybe later the two track. I was just going to get an analog multi track and master digital. what do you guys suggest?

[FALKEN]

a 2 track is less expensive to get into. that is why it is suggested. you also will notice the difference right away. multi-tracks also require an outboard mixer which many people don't have. I personally went with the multitrack first. the 2-track gave more of an improvement. just my experience. oh, by the way, the 2-track cost me $250, and the multi-track cost a grand, and I will be upgrading the multi-track before the 2-track. just a note.

[Dr ZEE]

Originally Posted by Kasey

Your first step is to get a good two-track 1/2" machine..

..that's a some hell-ova'-"first" step... What are 1/2" two-tracks? Studer A80-something? Sony APR-something??? or what? Who's doing "first steps" like that? hmmmmm

Kasey, what ever the writer of the "back to analog/good bad an'ugly" means or who ever he/she directs his/her step-by-step "instructions" to ... don't think too hard about it Just use common sense and logic.
Get the machine which you may think you need or may be beneficial for production of YOUR music in your situation. Multi-tracks are for tracking, two-track(s) are for mix-down ... so??? what ever may apply - one or the other or both - that's my primitive "thinking"

One thing though. Just a thought... if you never EVER before had/used/worked with any reel-to-reel recorders, and if you are not sure that you will be comfortable working with it, then you can get something least-expansive - just to play with and get feel of it. Well on the other hand if you do that it really may be a waste of time and money... it hard to say. It depends. You see, the problem is (or the current situation is), that the machine you are going to get will be used and may need extra care, maybe fix/set-up and then, after you get your machine up and running, you still will have to deal with some specific issues from time to time.... it's an electro-mechanical thing, so you know (just like a car or what have you... in a sense). So if you up to dealing with this, then just go for it and get the multi-track and start working with it. Sooner you start - sooner you get the result, whether it will be a success or you find it to hard to use or even useless. Analog recording is GREAT, but I don't think it's for everyone (from practical point), but you'll never know whether it is or it is not for you unless you actually try it.

good luck,

/respects

[Kasey]

well digital recording definetly isnt for me, so i guess thats my only other option.