Possibly a stupid question about mastering

[B.C.Johnson]

I've done all my recordings on a PC so far, but I'm looking to into analog to give them some tape saturation/warmth/character/blah blah blah....

For mastering, is it at all useful to record a digital mix onto analog tape? Or is analog better used as the main recording medium to be imported into a digital environment?

What are some single/2-track tape recorders that would yield "pro" results? I'd be willing to spend in the $1000+ range.

And lastly, would a 1/4" tape suffice for a stereo track?

[reel buzzer]

If you are talking about using an analog tape recorder as a processing unit during mastering to change the sound then yes, you can change the sound, with a 1/4 inch stereo.
I don't know how it will change the sound, depends on the deck.
But it will change it allright.

Right, better to recorder to analog first for what you said "saturation" -
because stereo master to tape isn't the same as -- pushing the level on a snare track to get some tape compression and having the control of lowering that track signal to fit in the mix.

[Dr ZEE]

Originally Posted by B.C.Johnson

For mastering, is it at all useful to record a digital mix onto analog tape?

Yes. Also depending on specifics of the musical material, personal preferences and potential targeted audience (what the recording material to be used for) you may find it more or less useful from practical point.

Originally Posted by B.C.Johnson

Or is analog better used as the main recording medium to be imported into a digital environment?

Yes. Well, meaning "better than what?" Analog recording IS THE ONLY recording medium. Digital recording is a convenient alternative compromise, no more no less than that.

Originally Posted by B.C.Johnson

What are some single/2-track tape recorders that would yield "pro" results?

I personally am not a pro (never was and never will be), so, what "pro" result is or may mean - I have no slight idea. From my experience I can tell this, though: The result I am getting recording to Tascam 32 is on the same level with what I am/was getting with some pro digital recorders I happened to have, plus! - all that tape saturation/warmth/character/blah blah blah.... I can tell more: the result I am getting when recordin to never-ment-to-pro old TEAC A-4300sx consumer stereo at 7.5ips is mindblowing, and it blows my mind mostly due to the fact that in today's "environment" there's no way, that what I am getting will ever have a chance to be heard by any listener, because it will be (in the best case!) converted to CD, (not even mentioning f**ng mp3 )

Look for 15 ips /1/2 track (1/4" tape that is) - you'll be happy in general. Most "common" are: Tascam, Otari, Fostex, Revox (Studer)... that's the 'brand' lineup (and yes Tascam goes first and Studer goes last - I actually mean it heh-heh )

Originally Posted by B.C.Johnson

I'd be willing to spend in the $1000+ range.?

There's no catalog. There's junk yard at e-bay. You have to start shopping. I was shopping for like more than 6 month before I've got working machine. You may get lucky and find one fast. Depending on model and especially condition you may need from $100 through hmmmmm $400 or more (sometimes bids go through the roof, which often has nothing to do with anything.... like, for example greate photo work of the item often doubles the final price, people like great pictures, original boxes, original manual included and especially metal empty takeup reels with machine's brand name on it - these kind of extras may cost you extra couple hunded bux, especially if there are bunch of great photos of all the extras .... )

[B.C.Johnson]

Thanks! Answers bring about more questions though.

So....is there extra headroom going from 1/4" to 1/2"? Or is anything above 1/4" even necessary for single/stereo recording?

And 30ips uses double the amount of tape than 15ips. How much more noticeable is the quality?

Are tape recorders generally very noisy?

Reels of tape are still available by the manufacturer, right?

[esotericality]

Originally Posted by B.C.Johnson

Thanks! Answers bring about more questions though.

So....is there extra headroom going from 1/4" to 1/2"? Or is anything above 1/4" even necessary for single/stereo recording?

And 30ips uses double the amount of tape than 15ips. How much more noticeable is the quality?

Are tape recorders generally very noisy?

Reels of tape are still available by the manufacturer, right?

hey, I have a vintage Teac tape deck I purchased for $5 at a garage sale, it sounds better than any computer recording I have done yet. You can spend alot less to get alot better of a recording than digital.

[Dr ZEE]

without going into details:

Originally Posted by B.C.Johnson

So....is there extra headroom going from 1/4" to 1/2"?

No.

Originally Posted by B.C.Johnson

Or is anything above 1/4" even necessary for single/stereo recording?

No.

Originally Posted by B.C.Johnson

And 30ips uses double the amount of tape than 15ips.?

Yes.

Originally Posted by B.C.Johnson

How much more noticeable is the quality?

Not much. I'd say: it is not noticeable, unless you really work hard on noticing
(also, of course, I am wrong on this one. wait to hear from a "real pro" )

Originally Posted by B.C.Johnson

Are tape recorders generally very noisy?

Tape recorders we are talking here about - No. 15ips/1/4"/1/2-track/Quantegy GP-9 tape - you can say - near noiseless (you can hear hiss is you really turn amp's volume so high (which you'd never listen normally) and then put your ear 1 inch off the speaker - don't do it, if recorded material coming up - it may damage your ear

Originally Posted by B.C.Johnson

Reels of tape are still available by the manufacturer, right?

Yes. Quantegy that is (as for today).

Go shopping already
**********8
P.S.
...what esotericality have said is NOT a fairytale

/respects

[B.C.Johnson]

It sounds too good to be true. It's sad to say that the wool has been pulled over my eyes from digital "this and that" being shoved down my throat these years.

I guess I'll spend a couple hundred bucks on something, and see how I like it. All you analog people seem to swear by your secret weapons.

Just a couple questions: will bringing the taped recording into a pc take away the analog mojo?

In the "pro audio world," how often are recordings taped, and then imported into a DAW for editing and sweetening?

[Dr ZEE]

Originally Posted by B.C.Johnson

It sounds too good to be true.

Yes. It does.

Originally Posted by B.C.Johnson

All you analog people seem to swear by your secret weapons. ?

Speaking of secret weapons. Here's what I can tell. In the production process: Analog recording will force you to actually make better music instead of making bad music "better". And! Analog recording will slow down your production process, which will give you more time to work on actually making better music.

Originally Posted by B.C.Johnson

will bringing the taped recording into a pc take away the analog mojo?

...yeah, I guess ...in a sense, but memories of IT will stay

Originally Posted by B.C.Johnson

In the "pro audio world," how often are recordings taped, and then imported into a DAW for editing and sweetening?

I have no idea ... (nor care I must add ). In the little world of my anti-pro cave it's being used pretty often
You gotta ask pros about this, I guess...
Now, how 'bout this one? :

Originally Posted by Beck

Analog is a highly accurate, modern technology, plus there is someting about the way it reacts to elevated levels that is candy to the human ear. That something has a lot to do with the fact that our ears naturally compress loud sound similar to what tape does. Tom Scholz called it “that analog smear” in an article way back in 1987.

The idea that digital is more accurate is one that I reject, though it is widely held. There is something wrong, missing and destructive in the digital process in comparison, not to analog tape, but to live sound. Experts have been debating exactly what that something is for decades now, so we won’t settle it here.

From the very earliest days of digital a myth was propagated that the recordings were so accurate that it captured every little detail, warts and all. It started with the Sony DASH reel-to-reels, PCM, R-Dat and so on. The idea was that the existing equipment would have to catch up to match the fidelity of digital.

IT IS NOT TRUE! IT WAS NEVER TRUE! IT IS MYTH # 1 IN THE DIGITAL SAGA! It was the digital process itself all along that was producing the ill effects. And the industry did not move forward but rather back to tubes/valves to remedy the problem. The acceptance of digital was solely responsible for the tube revolution of the 90’s.

When I want a good laugh I pour over my many periodicals from about 1985 to the present and read the breathless reviews of CD, DAT and 486 DAWS. I know some of those guys like Craig Anderton and Paul White have to blush when they read some of their old articles (I hope they do anyway).

In retrospect a lot of the magazines that helped bring about the digital revolution were nothing more than commercial rags. Those guys didn’t know what they were doing half the time – it was all new to them too. They just swept one another along with whatever the manufacturers were feeding them.

The Emperor’s New Clothes indeed, and only the more serious engineering mags like dB and Recording Engineer/Producer dared point out digital’s nakedness with any real science. The other mags finally did as well from about 1997 because there was no more denying digitals’s shortcomings.

At about this same time articles and reports of studios taking their analog machines out of mothballs began to circulate. One example, this segment from a 1998 EE Times Tom Scholz interview.

"I still record the same way I always did," said Scholz. "The master goes to tape, and I mix in analog. My board is a 20-year old [Audiotronix] mixing console."

The equipment fits well with the recent renaissance of the "primal" rock sound — a movement that amuses Scholz.

"Now people are falling all over themselves to get a hold of these old tape decks," he said. "Fortunately, I'm very slow to change something that's working."

In the pro world there are now more analog machines in use today than there were in the late 90’s – that’s a fact. The larger million dollar operations have mostly Studer and some Otari. But do a search for pro working studios that have Tascam MS-16, MSR-16, MSR-24, 38, 388, TSR-8, 32, 34, 22-2, BR-20 and Fostex B-16, E-16, G-16, R-8, Model 20, E-2, E-22, etc. It will be this time next year before you document them all. Yep, most also have Pro Tools and/or other digital formats as well.

In the home recording paradigm that lives in about all other forums, but this one, people are unaware of what is going on in the pro world. Thus we have questions like, “why still analog?” and snide comments about “catching the analog disease.”

Why still analog? Ask these guys:

Abbey Road - London, UK
http://www.abbeyroad.co.uk/
Studer A80:
24 & 16 track in 2"
8 & 4 track in 1"
4 track in ½"
2 track in ¼" and ½"
Studer A810:
2 track with timecode or mono with sync pulse
Studer A820:
6 24-track machines in 2"
1 16-track headblock in 2"
1 2 track in ½" format
Ampex ATR 100:
4 track ½" format
3 track ½" format (playback only)

Ardent Studios - Memphis, TN
http://www.ardentstudios.com
3 - Studer 827 Analog 24 Track (One Optional 16 Track Headstack)
1 - Studer A80RC Analog 1/2" 2 Track
1 - MCI JH110 Analog 1/2" 2 Track
1 - MCI JH110 Analog 1/4" 2 Track
6 Tascam 122 MKIII Cassette Decks

Criteria Studios (The New Hit Factory) Miami, FL
http://www.criteriastudios.com/
2 Studer A-820 24-Track
3 Studer A 827 24-Track
Otari MTR-90 24-Track
2 Studer A-820 2-Track (1/2" or 1/4")
Ampex ATR 102 2-Track (1/2" or 1/4")
MCI JH110-B 2-Track
MCI JH110-B 4-Track

Electric Lady - NYC
http://ridiculousparadigm.com/lady/index.shtml
http://www.electricladystudios.com
2 Studer A-800 MKIII 24-track
Studer A-820 24-track
Studer A-820 1/2" 2-track
Studer A-80 VU 1/2" 2 Track
Studer A-810 VU 1/4" 2 Track

Fame Studios - Muscle Shoals, AL
http://www.fame2.com/studios.html
MCI JH-24 2" 24-track
MCI JH-16 2" 24-track
2 Studer B-67 Half-Track
2 Tascam 122 MKII Cassette Decks

Hyde Street - San Francisco, CA
http://www.hydestreet.com/
Otari MTR90 MKII 24 or 16-track
Otari MX5050 MKIII 1/2" 8-track
Ampex ATR 102 1/2" mastering deck

Jungle Room, Glendale CA
http://www.jungleroom.net
MCI JH24 2" 24 Track
Studer - A-80 1/2" 2 Track

Ocean Way - Hollywood & Sherman Oaks, CA
http://www.oceanwayrecording.com/studios.htm
Studer A827 2" 24-track
Ampex ATR-124 24 or 16-track
A800 MKIII 24 track
2 Ampex ATR-100 1/2" or 1/4" Half-Track Mastering

Paisley Park Studios - Chanhassan, MN (Reopened 2004)
http://www.paisleyparkstudios.net/sound_intro.asp
3 Studer A-800 M III 24-tracks
2 Studer A-827 Gold Edition
Studer A-820 Master Recorder 1/2"
Studer A-820 Master Recorder 1/4"
2 Studer A721 Cassette Deck

Rumbo Recorders - Canoga Park, CA
http://captainandtennille.net/rumbo_pgs/clients.html
3 Studer A-827 Analog 24 track Recorders
1 Studer A-820 1/2" Half-Track Mastering Deck
1 Ampex ATR-104 2 or 4 track 1/2"or 1/4" head stacks

Scream Studios - LA, CA
http://www.screamstudios.com/albums.html
Studer A-827 2" 24-track Recorders
Studer A-820 1/2" Half-Track Mastering Deck

Signature Sound - San Diego CA
http://www.signaturesound.com
Studer A827 24-track
Otari MTR-12C 1/2" mastering deck

Skywalker Sound (Lucas Film LTD)
http://www.skysound.com
2 Studer 827 2" 24-tracks
1 Studer 827 2" 16-track
AMPEX ATR 2-Track & 4-Track Mastering Recorders

Studio in the Country - Bogalusa, LA
http://www.studiointhecountry.com/clients_list.htm
Studer A/820 2" 24-trk recorder w/Dolby SR
Studer A/80 2" 24-trk recorder
Studer A/80 2" half-Track recorder w/Dolby SR
Studer A/721 Cassette Recorder


I researched these myself and it’s just a small sampling. It goes on and on, but I do have a day job so you guys will have to find the rest yourself.

-Tim

.....
have been posted HERE ... only God knows why it was posted ...heh heh
/respects

[Dr ZEE]

oh, one thing....
Please, don't ask me: "Where's the logic? How can slowing down give you more time to do what ever you do?"
There's no logic here. It's a paradox, I think
I can try to explain this way: Making music is not a highway travel from exit A to exit B, but rather is a walk through the forest, over the hill and across the river. Too fast - not enough time.

/respects

[B.C.Johnson]

Originally Posted by Dr ZEE

oh, one thing....
Please, don't ask me: "Where's the logic? How can slowing down give you more time to do what ever you do?"
There's no logic here. It's a paradox, I think
I can try to explain this way: Making music is not a highway travel from exit A to exit B, but rather is a walk through the forest, over the hill and across the river. Too fast - not enough time.

/respects

No, I totally understand that. I've been feeling "dirty" when I have to chop something up to high hell, just to make it sound like a decent performance.


Thanks a ton for all the great info, by the way.

[A Reel Person]

If you believe what you read on bbs's, you just might find your next Tascam while "dumpster diving"!

[Dr ZEE]

here are some current junk-items I 've found by performing a quick search (as examples):
http://cgi.ebay.com/Tascam-BR-20T-1-...temZ5858212582
http://cgi.ebay.com/TASCAM-32-PRO-RE...temZ7384360756
http://cgi.ebay.com/OTARI-MX-5050BII...temZ5858289250
http://cgi.ebay.com/Tascam-22-2-Reel...temZ5855643224
(the last one is an example which may not look attractive, but that's how you may get a nice machine for cheap ...well, you never really know)
.....

[B.C.Johnson]

Originally Posted by Dr ZEE

here are some current junk-items I 've found by performing a quick search (as examples):
http://cgi.ebay.com/Tascam-BR-20T-1-...temZ5858212582
http://cgi.ebay.com/TASCAM-32-PRO-RE...temZ7384360756
http://cgi.ebay.com/OTARI-MX-5050BII...temZ5858289250
http://cgi.ebay.com/Tascam-22-2-Reel...temZ5855643224
(the last one is an example which may not look attractive, but that's how you may get a nice machine for cheap ...well, you never really know)
.....

....Are they actual junk, or figurative "junk"?

[The Ghost of FM]

Originally Posted by B.C.Johnson

....Are they actual junk, or figurative "junk"?

Most if not all of them look pretty damn good.

Cheers!

[Dr ZEE]

heh...
seriously, I've picked the ones I would personally watch/bid if I was shopping for two-track machine at the moment.
It's pretty tough at e-bay nowdays as I can tell. Last 30sec bidders always are there .... so, it's tough

[The Ghost of FM]

Originally Posted by Dr ZEE

heh...
seriously, I've picked the ones I would personally watch/bid if I was shopping for two-track machine at the moment.
It's pretty tough at e-bay nowdays as I can tell. Last 30sec bidders always are there .... so, it's tough

I know what you mean about the snippers!

I've been burnt more then once by them.

I'm currently bidding on a very nice deuce right now that closes in a couple of days.

I put my maximum bid in and if it goes over that, so be it. I'm patient. I can wait.

Cheers!

[Dr ZEE]

Originally Posted by The Ghost of FM

...snippers!
I've been burnt more then once by them.

one way to defeat snippers is to become one (at least for a while).
remember Jean-Luc Picard?

[Seeker of Rock]

Funny this thread pops up as I have been perusing ebay just looking, mind you, at a stereo 1/4" for mixdown. Right now, the final mix goes from Christine (my MSR-16 as you all know) into the board and LR out into a TASCAM CDRW-700 (don't be discouraged B.C., everything BEFORE burner is analog ). It's not that I dislike the CDRW700, it's that damned IBM article that's got me to thinkin' about long-term preservation. I'll always have the tracks to the songs on reel, nice and safe, but it would really suck to have to go through the mixing process again should one of those CDs decide to start letting light shine through it. I always take notes, though, note levels for each knob on a diagram, obsessive as it is, so I guess it wouldn't be too bad if I had to do it.

[Beck]

Originally Posted by B.C.Johnson

For mastering, is it at all useful to record a digital mix onto analog tape? Or is analog better used as the main recording medium to be imported into a digital environment?

What are some single/2-track tape recorders that would yield "pro" results? I'd be willing to spend in the $1000+ range.

And lastly, would a 1/4" tape suffice for a stereo track?

People do either or both... tracking and/or mastering with analog. Mastering to half-track regained popularity in the mid-late 90's to remedy the widely perceived coldness of a totally digital environment. Here's a quote from George Graves from that time:

"If you want my advice, with all the available digital technology you still can't beat the sound of a good analog mixdown.... The effect on your sound can be dramatic. With an analog mixdown, you have a much wider, deeper sound with greater stereo imaging. An analog mixdown has a texture that digital cannot produce. And, simply put, to my ears it sounds better ... that's it. No more explanation needed."
--George Graves, Chief Engineer - Lacquer Channel Mastering, Toronto
Professional Sound Magazine, April 1998


The Tascam 32, 22-2, BR-20, 42 are all great 1/4" half-track decks for mastering.

So are Fostex Model 20 and E-2. Fostex also made the E-22, which is a 1/2" mastering deck.

The MX5050 is the most popular Otari 1/4" half-track. There are also a few MX50s and 55s floating around out there.

IMO the Tascams are the best bet for the long term at this point, because most parts are still available from Tascam.

The 22-2 is my personal favorite for size/cost/performance. It performs about like the 32, but you can carry it under one arm for location recording. And there’s just the general “Wow” factor… how can this little thing sound so good? It’s almost like you’re getting away with something and if the Feds ever found out they would impose a tax on it. If 7” reels (about 22 minutes recording time) is not a limitation for your purposes this is one to look at.

¼” @ 15 ips is standard. Higher speed and wider tracks = better signal to noise, but 30 ips vs. 15 ips is another can of worms. Many prefer 15 ips because 30 is lacking in low frequency content, but the higher speed is better for noise.

In general Tascam’s specs on paper are conservative. Expect a signal-to-noise of around 70 dB, more or less, and a frequency response of 30 Hz to 22 kHz +/- 3 dB.

The best performer of all the above is the Tascam BR-20.

2-track on 1/2" tape is technically superior, but maybe not worth it in cost/benefit terms. And unless you happen across a Fostex E-22, it’s going to cost a lot to get an ATR or Studer ½” machine, or an MX5050 conversion.

2-track on ¼” is pretty fat... 0.070 inch (NAB), which is the same track width as 16 on 2” tape. With modern high output tape like Quantegy GP9, 2 on 1/4" is even more than it used to be.

[arjoll]

Originally Posted by Beck

The best performer of all the above is the Tascam BR-20.

I'd second that, the BR20 is a very, very nice machine.

[jpmorris]

Originally Posted by arjoll

I'd second that, the BR20 is a very, very nice machine.

Oh yes, I really wanted one of those. I got a B77 recently though, and now I'm a bit less eager.
Do you by any chance know the TEAC part no. for the BR20 capstan motor? I want to know if it's the same as the TSR-8 (the reel motors are the same).

[arjoll]

Originally Posted by jpmorris

Oh yes, I really wanted one of those. I got a B77 recently though, and now I'm a bit less eager.
Do you by any chance know the TEAC part no. for the BR20 capstan motor? I want to know if it's the same as the TSR-8 (the reel motors are the same).

Sorry, can't help you there, I've just got a 32. Have used a BR20 a bit, but had to settle for something a bit more affordable!