16-track vs. 24-track (r2r)

[vostok88]

Possibly a 'dumb' question here, but still - I'd like to get some honest responses if possible: My question at hand is: What are the advantages & disadvantages of using a 16-track, 1-inch r2r - vs. - using a 24-track, 2-inch r2r?

(or, is the 2-inch, 24-track machine just 'better' all-around?)

If not:

How much better or worse is the overall 'sound' quality? Is one more 'hassle' than the other? I've even heard a few times that the 16-track, 1-inch machine, actually sounds 'better', than the 24-tk, 2-inch machine - due to not as many tracks being used on a 1-inch tape vs. the 2-inch - is this true also? (and of course, anything else that you may think of.)

- much appreciated.

[The Ghost of FM]

What are the advantages & disadvantages of using a 16-track, 1-inch r2r - vs. - using a 24-track, 2-inch r2r?

The advantage is that 1" tape costs less then 2" tape...about $100 less per reel. The disadvantage is that you will have 8 tracks less to play with.

The sound quality differences can't be solely attributed to the tape track width unless you are directly comparing two decks from the same manufacturer using the same amp circuits.

Basically, we're only talking about using 25% more tape real estate per track on the 24 track, 2" machine so basically this will just allow you a bit more headroom in pushing levels and give you a bit more insurance against spot drop outs.

If we are talking about the differences in channel amplifier design comparing say TASCAM's card's sound quality versus say the quality of the channel amp design that Studer used on their most recent 2" 24 track decks, then there will be a bigger attributable difference compared to just the extra few bits of oxide, the tape is giving you to work with.

Cheers!

[iownrocknroll]

I always though 24 track 2 inch sounded "wider" and deeper.

I feel I can hear for stereo depth, I also think it has more lower lows and higher highs
I might just be crazy, that all said, I really dig when mastering engineers use some good old 1/2 2 track

[vostok88]

Thank you very much sir with your quick reply. And your answer does help make some goods sense out of this as well.

Main reason I was asking, is because I've been SERIOUSLY in the market to buy a Tascam MS-16 1-inch recorder, but I have a guy that wants me to buy an Otari 24-track, 2-inch recorder instead - and for about $800 bucks or so higher in price.

Now, I'm sure that he's also just trying to 'sell me' on his, but like I said earlier, I at least wanted to know the main 'pro's & con's, before doing so. Both units seem to be in 'fine working order', low head hours, recently tested & calibrated, etc, etc.

So with all of this being said now - would you still recommend me to go ahead & buy the Otari unit, for only $800 higher?

thanks,

[The Ghost of FM]

If you can afford the difference in both the deck and the tape costs and feel you can make use of the additional 8 tracks then yes, go for the 2", 24 track.

If you can't, then go for the 16 track.

Cheers!

[trancedental]

Get a 16 track 2" machine the fattest sound I've ever heard anyway!!!!!

Seriously the $800 extra for the Studer 24 would be worth it if you can afford it & the extra costs of tape

[lo.fi.love]

Just wanted to add my two cents. It really has nothing to do with either of these two particular tape decks, but...

I think I'm pretty familiar with this decision: 1) Buy what you need, and what you can fully utilize today, or 2) Buy something a little nicer which provides more than what you need (or more than you might ever need).

#2 is how I ended up with a huge, 20-channel mixer on my bedroom floor, lying on its side. I need to complete three or four significant, time- and labor-intensive projects before I can finally put it to use.

I kind of feel like a Dad for posting this (ha ha), but keep your current situation in mind when "upgrading" to nicer/bigger/expensive equipment

[stevieb]

Originally Posted by iownrocknroll

I always though 24 track 2 inch sounded "wider"...

They certainly LOOK wider!

[witzendoz]

Originally Posted by trancedental

Get a 16 track 2" machine the fattest sound I've ever heard anyway!!!!!

A studio not far from me (my friendly competition and a good friend), has a 2" 16 track, hugh sound, but also the rest of the studio is analog heaven and he has the clients that will pay to use it as it is expensive to run. http://www.poonshead.com

I have a 24 track digital recorder and a 16 track 1/2" with dolby S and thats what my client base use, but my rates are also cheaper as I have lower overheads, I would love to go wide analog but it's all costs, horses for courses.

Big and fat is great but the costs go up, you have to ask yourself do you need it.

Cheers Alan.

[The Ghost of FM]

Originally Posted by witzendoz

A studio not far from me (my friendly competition and a good friend), has a 2" 16 track, hugh sound, but also the rest of the studio is analog heaven and he has the clients that will pay to use it as it is expensive to run. http://www.poonshead.com

I have a 24 track digital recorder and a 16 track 1/2" with dolby S and thats what my client base use, but my rates are also cheaper as I have lower overheads, I would love to go wide analog but it's all costs, horses for courses.

Big and fat is great but the costs go up, you have to ask yourself do you need it.

Cheers Alan.

Wow!

Your buddy has a nice, nice set up there!

Cheers!

[Blue Jinn]

That is synth heaven. The only thing missing is a Mellotron!

[sweetbeats]

I'm not a synth guy but the fella from whom I bought my Ampex 440-8 had some cool stuff in his studio...may have already seen this:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...%3D1%26hl%3Den

[Lance Lawson]

2" 16 track is about as good as good gets! Back when I was in the studio we started with 8 tracks and then the studio converted to 16 track. I think the most my band ever used was 14 tracks. We'd become so creative from 8 tracks that 16 was overkill. In any event the 2" 16 track sounded fantastic. I still have all my old 2" masters.