Ideal 16/24 track and mixer combo?

[Peck]

I was wondering what your guys ideal setup would be for an all analog, of course , studio with 16 or 24 track tape recorder and mixer....

Just curious to see who likes what, if you care to chime in.

[sweetbeats]

I feel like I already have it albeit in 8-track...prototype Tascam M-500 mixer and my choice of a full Tascam 58-OB outfit (with 2 DX-4D's, RC-51 full-function remote and ES-50/51 synchronizer in CS-607 rack), or the 1" 8-track Ampex AG-440...funny...they're all in process and torn apart right now though...

But I suppose if it was my pick of a 16 ~ 24 track setup and money wasn't an option (i.e. I could afford the gear, 2" tape and all that goes with that ) it would be an Ampex MM-1200 2" 16-track or MCI JH-16 two-track and a 500 or 600 series MCI console...I just think that stuff is really incredibly neat. The engineering is tops. From a more contemporary offering I also really like the Toft consoles.

But in all humble honesty I really have no "desire" to have any of those things. I think I'd be just as happy to spend a day in a control room with them just to hear their noises and feel the operation of them. What I have is more than I can handle or do good with anyway, not that that was what you were asking. I'm having an easier time seeing that I'm living the dream when my 4-year-old and I play with the 424 mkII and the $5 dynamic mics.

[pianodano]

Originally Posted by sweetbeats

From a more contemporary offering I also really like the Toft consoles.

I think I'd be just as happy to spend a day in a control room with them just to hear their noises and feel the operation of them.

I almost bought a 636. Wonderful console. And it was perfect. But I knew that it was about time for a recap.

If you ever come to Virgina Beach you can come by and hear the Toft anytime. But I suppose there are quite a few of them in your part of the world.

Danny

[cjacek]

Nothing to go by, other than literature, photos and word of mouth but my ideal setup would probably be an MCI 2" 16 track and a matching MCI console.

[ausrock]

Well I'm happy with my Tascam ATR-60 1" 16 trk and would be happier if I could figure out why my S/craft Spirit Studio console keeps "losing" the LH master channel..............I've been managing to work around the problem but damn, I'd like to get it sorted. I've got a mate with a similar ATR who wants me to buy it but $$$ aren't available to throw around although it would be nice to see two of them with reels spinning in synch

[RRuskin]

Originally Posted by cjacek

Nothing to go by, other than literature, photos and word of mouth but my ideal setup would probably be an MCI 2" 16 track and a matching MCI console.

We had an MCI 24 track @ the old Pasadena installation mated with a custom built Spectra Sonics style console. Nice combination but I'm still lusting for a Sony MPX3036 which was the last analog board designed by MCI.

[A Reel Person]

I had big aspirations at one time, so I got a Tascam MS-16 1" reel & M-520 mixer in combination,... plus an MSR-24 at some previous time,... but for various reasons I've not fully implemented either setup or done any real production work with them. Go figure. My life's funny like that sometimes, but I'm happy in general with the hardware.

I'd scoped a Tascam ATR-80/24 2" reel for future purchase at one time, but in respect to the previous paragraph, I've gone luke warm on the idea lately. Better to fully utilize the 1" reels I already have,... plus I don't have the scratch for a 2" setup at the moment.

As an ironic aside, I've found in the turnaround that most of my inspiration lies in the 4~8-track realm, and I've never really shifted mental "gears" to up my productions to 16- or 24-track, despite having the hardware,... all future/TBD, so again go-figure.

One hinderance to my original 24-track aspirations was the amount of cabling it required to set it up completely. That may be a weak excuse or incidental to other issues, but it's a real concern. My 16-track setup came with a large box of tangled wires that was formerly the interconnect and patch bay, but I've not ventured to implement it either,... tho' it's all quality Canare cable with Neutrik connectors. It could easily take half a day to unbox and untangle the whole mess!

I've found I've always gotten really enthusiastic about ideas in their inception stages, but often I run out of steam in the implementation stages, and the 4-track or 8-track fits my ideas in a matter of expedience and convenience. My recording projects and output is a lot less than it used to be, too, as an additional factor.

My story is not typical. Pay no mind to it, but my vote is for the MS-16 or MSR-24 (1"-R/R) with an M-520 mixer. The hardware is of suitable quality in my opinion, tho' my motivation may not be in place to capitalize on it/TBA.

A nice upgraded console (from the M-520) would be a Tascam M-600, if you could find one.

At certain times I've contemplated scrapping it all for the Tascam 2488, but.... NAAAAAWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!

[Peck]

thanks for all the responses guys. it's great to hear what everyone's unique taste is with gear.

[Peck]

i had never looked at the MCI consoles before. those things are pretty cool looking.

I think I would probably go with the Tascam ATR-60 16 for the multi track, and then I have no idea which way I would go on the console. I would want one that sounded good and worked. to be technical.

of course, a studer a827 24 trk 2 inch would be pretty sweet if money was no option

I don't even have any idea how much those things cost if they are in good shape. probably more than all my assets combined.

[Peck]

ampex atr-124 would be sweet too

[jpmorris]

For the console, I've no idea. Probably something crappy like a Behringer because everything else is an order of magnitude more expensive

Actually, I saw a good deal on an Otari MTR-90 mk2 recently. I was kind-of tempted, but the cost of a 24-track mixing desk, the running costs and the fact that it weighs about half a ton put me off rather.

However, I can still dream, and this is probably why the laboratory in the webcomic I run gradually morphed into a 24-track recording studio

[Peck]

that's the deal. If you want to get into a setup like this, you either have to have some serious cash stashed away, or.... I don't know what else. It takes money. so it seems like working with what you got is a good place to start.

but it's nice to dream a little

[ffg]

You guys....

Why do you want to confuse your recordings by passing through an analogue stage? Can't you get the sound you want without it?

Analogue (analog if you are west of Cornwall) was OK when that was all there was. Semi-pro analogue (Tascam MSR24 and the like) was OK if you couldn't afford the real thing - Studer/Otari/Neve...

But really, you won't improve your music by adding analogue noise and distortion, unless (and this is key) your recording is badly executed/mixed in the first place.

I've been listening to some recordings I made in the late 70's and early 80's with just the equipment you're talking about. It's not bad, but is it better than the music I record every day with an all digital recording chain? You bet it isn't.

It's easy to believe we could do better with different tools. Forget it and get on making music with whatever you can lay your hands on.

[RRuskin]

Originally Posted by Peck

ampex atr-124 would be sweet too

As I recall, they had one of those at A&M. The word back then was that it sounded great but was not the most reliable of machines. I was told that it's failure in the market was what sunk Ampex as an audio recorder manufacturer.

[Peck]

Well, that's good to know. Maybe it wouldn't be so sweet after all Rick.

[Peck]

ffg,

whatever works for you man. if tape makes you happy, record with it. If you like recording on a computer, do that. Whatever makes you happy, and to each his own.

[SteveM]

Originally Posted by ffg

You guys....

Why do you want to confuse your recordings by passing through an analogue stage?

.

Because digital doesn't sound as good?
"confuse"?

LOL

[ffg]

Absolutely, each to his own. Analogue tape (and to a lesser extent analogue circuitry) is always less than perfect and the cumulative result is distortion and noise. Some people like the effect this has on their work. IMHO confusion is a good descriptive term for it.

Digital audio has its own set of issues - but I for one am happy with it and don't want to go back to the much greater compromises which analogue recording chains impose. Plus my clients weren't happy to pay hundreds of £/$ for 2" recording tape!

Good luck with whatever you use.

[jpmorris]

Originally Posted by ffg

You guys....
Why do you want to confuse your recordings by passing through an analogue stage? Can't you get the sound you want without it?

I must admit I've never really understood the idea of multitracking to a DAW or something through a 2-track machine if that's what you're referring to, but that's not what I'm about, personally.
I do pretty much all of it in the analogue domain until mastering, and the reason for that is not so much the sound, but because I wanted to get some idea of how things used to be done.

Think of it as like running a classic car. It's expensive, awkward to run and a modern car will have so many benefits over some 1950s or 1960s model that it's not funny. But people do it, and they do it because they want to.

In a commercial setting? That's different, but this is Home Recording, and therefore a hobby. My hobby (music-wise) is recording things onto tape.

[trancedental]

Originally Posted by ffg

You guys....

Why do you want to confuse your recordings by passing through an analogue stage? Can't you get the sound you want without it?

Analogue (analog if you are west of Cornwall) was OK when that was all there was. Semi-pro analogue (Tascam MSR24 and the like) was OK if you couldn't afford the real thing - Studer/Otari/Neve...

But really, you won't improve your music by adding analogue noise and distortion, unless (and this is key) your recording is badly executed/mixed in the first place.

I've been listening to some recordings I made in the late 70's and early 80's with just the equipment you're talking about. It's not bad, but is it better than the music I record every day with an all digital recording chain? You bet it isn't.

It's easy to believe we could do better with different tools. Forget it and get on making music with whatever you can lay your hands on.

There's so many contradictions & speculative opinion in the above post, especially considering the end statement I really can’t be bothered with an in depth response.

However the main fact is that people still use analog recording & tracking gear, in both high end situations & more modest set-ups today. In fact many companies & equipment builders are using old technology & designs in supposedly new products.

Even those that use solely digital recording facilities are often utilising analog outboard for tracking & using analog consoles / summing boxes for mixdown.

In my experience to replace my hybrid Analog / DAW set up, for supposedly better recording results, with a complete digital system would be a huge expense.

Personally I doubt if there is anything under £2-3000 that could make a significant difference to my recordings over what I have already, I’d rather spend my money on buying / building better outboard which doesn’t have the added built in financial depreciation factor of the latest digital gizmos!!!!!

[Peck]

Yeah, I can tell all the other analog guys on here are like "stay away from that thread!"

No one wants to fire this debate up. But yeah, I know a lot of my favorite artists on major labels and not major labels record onto tape, and they sound great.

I understand if you're running a commercial studio for profit, that it would be hard to justify tape costs to clients who just want their album to sound as good as possible.

But I don't think that one is better than the other. It really does just come down to preference.

I personally enjoy all of the hardware associated with analog recording vs. plugins and staring at waveforms. It's not that I think recording digitally is bad. I know a lot of records that I love, were recorded digitally and they sound awesome. It's really just a preference.

Anyway, ffg, I do respect your opinion. It sounds like you have been recording for a lot longer than I have. It sounds like you've been down the analog road years ago, and you're happier recording digitally now because it gives you better results. I respect that. Can I ask what your general recording setup is these days? I'm just curious.

I started out recording on Pro Tools, and no, I couldn't get the sound that I wanted. And I didn't enjoy sitting in front of the computer. That's really what it came down to. It felt more like "work" to me when I would be in front of the computer for days on end. That's just me though.