1/2" 16-track vs. 1/2" 8-track

lo.fi.love

lo.fi.love

Functionally obsessed.
Hey folks,

Quick question - Does anyone here have firsthand experience with both formats? How would you compare the fidelity between the two, and how significant of a step down is the 16 track from the 8 track in terms of sound quality?

I'd like someone who has experience with both to share their thoughts. In practical terms and not in theory. I understand the difference in specifications but if you have personal experience please share!

Thanks!
 
You might get more feedback if you also allow people who've owned 1/4" 8 track decks verses 1/2" 8 track decks.

The "theoretical" differences should be similar to your proposed question.

Cheers! :).
 
Which decks are you comparing, or are you purely looking to compare track width and how it relates to audio quality?

Besides the track width, mechanics and electronics of a given deck also can make a difference...so just 'cuz an 8-track might give more tape width, that alone may not make it better than the 16-track.
 
Good point. Specifically, I'm wondering if I switched to a MSR-16 from my 48, if the difference in track width *and* electronics would be enough to constitute a significant downgrade in audio quality.

I've had my 48 over five years now and using the right techniques it sounds truly amazing. I just wish I had more tracks.
 
lo.fi.love said:
Good point. Specifically, I'm wondering if I switched to a MSR-16 from my 48, if the difference in track width *and* electronics would be enough to constitute a significant downgrade in audio quality.

I've had my 48 over five years now and using the right techniques it sounds truly amazing. I just wish I had more tracks.
Click to expand...

If you are at the point where you're dealing with 3 or more bounces to get your production done on the 48, you'll probably be at the same place or slightly worse off sonically compared to a single generation, no bounce production on an MSR16, assuming both machines are in good shape and properly calibrated.

If you're comparing single pass productions on each there's going to be audible differences in the fullness of the sound. That's not to say that some of that could not be fattened back up with careful eq and a good transparent mixer that can preserve the clarity and not add to the cloudiness. Good engineering and good ears can also make even greater differences in the over all finished products as there's a million ways to screw up a mix and only a careful handful of ways to get things right.

Personally, I've owned a Fostex R-8 which ran at 15 ips with Dolby C on 1/4" tape and also a Tascam 38 with dbx and the difference in the fullness of sound and dynamics was near night and day where the Fostex was yielding sound quality that sounded pretty close to what a good consumer cassette deck sounds like...which is not horrible but is definitely not the sonic powerhouse that most of us come to analog for in the fist place.

Specs won't show these qualities in their numbers as there's no spec out there to define thickness in the analog world. Digital tries to address that with bit depth numbers: 8, 16 and 24. Analog has no such scale unless you get down to counting magnetic particles per track, per foot. Either ways, your ears would be the better judge of what's acceptable to you vs. what floors you or totally disappoints you. For me, the Fostex leaned toward the disappoint end of the scale, and the 38 I had leaned more to the middle satisfied point but not floored end of that ethereal meter. When I went on to get the MS-16, the meter moved a bit closer to the floored end and that was mostly because of the better electronics and added headroom they offered. Keep in mind, the 38 and the MS-16 share the same track width and speed.

What can you live with(?), I guess, is another serious question to ponder.

Cheers! :)
 
I transfer all the open reel analog formats here, from 1/4" 8T through to 2" 16T and 24T. I can tell you that 1/4" 8T, 1/2" 16T and even 1" 24T ALL sound inferior to 1/2" 8T and 1" 16T. The narrow gauge project studio formats just sound thin and lacking in balls. Additionally there is a murkiness to the sound, almost like it is fighting to break through. Think of the sound of a cheap HiFi amp.

The wider track formats of the 1/2" 8T and 1" 16T just sound so much better.

And bear this in mind: since tape machines nowadays can be bought for pennies on the dollar, why waste your time with project studio formats? There is just no need. Leave them for people like me to use for transfers only, and go for the better format for yourself!

Cheers

David Ollard
Thin Brown Line
 
Blimey I don't think I've even remembered the arguments we had back then when everyone was obsessed with track count. How things have changed. Foster proved that with care you could get decent enough quality on narrow tracks. The real problem back then, and much worse now because of tape stock issues, is the tape itself. Scrupulous head and guide cleaning, and constant listening for the first signs of tape lift mean that there isn't a huge difference in audio quality. Sure, you have to think about increased crosstalk, so it means planning for where you place critical instruments on the tape, but when working, I never really thought too much about quality differences, it was just minimising hiss, which took so much effort. Wider tracks just meant higher levels, less impact from dropout and practical stuff like that. The old 16 tr foster I had was great sounding, but just ate tapes if you forgot to clean it for a session. Cheaper tape shed more oxide, and some tapes that had been badly stored were horrible. I'd not want to spend lots of money today finding tape, because how do you know it's good till you try it? If somebody wanted to use a 16 track half inch I'd be happy. I used to have access to an old Otari, but memory says it sounded pretty much the same. However, some of my recordings from that era sound decidedly iffy, but I've no idea what the cause was, but I suspect it wasn't the multitrack.
 
thinbrownline said:
The narrow gauge project studio formats just sound thin and lacking in balls. Additionally there is a murkiness to the sound, almost like it is fighting to break through. Think of the sound of a cheap HiFi amp.

.....

And bear this in mind: since tape machines nowadays can be bought for pennies on the dollar, why waste your time with project studio formats? There is just no need. Leave them for people like me to use for transfers only, and go for the better format for yourself!
Line
Click to expand...


Yeah, I kinda have to agree.
My Fostex G-16 1/2" was considered one of the better prosumer narrow format machines (totally on par with the TASCAM narrow format machines like the MSR-16)...but when I moved up to the Otari MX-80 2" 24-track, it was quite noticable.
I got more track width, more tracks and more clarity and punch than the G-16 could ever match.

I was holding on to the G-16 up to now, initially thinking I could keep it as a back-up should the Otari ever go down....but honestly, after runnng with the Otari, going on 3 years now....I don't think I would bother using the G-16 as a back-up. Instead, I would just wait for the reapir on my MX-80, and if it was like totally shot, I would just look for another 2" 24-track...but that's highly unlikely, as I have a lot os spare parts and a great Otari tech, so my MX-80 will run a long time. :)

I know that even a used 2" will cost more than a MSR-16 1/2"...but if you can swing it, you will get the better audio quality you're after.
Of course, I can't say that a 1/2" narrow format is total shit...I mean, you can get pretty decent stuff with them if you work it to its full pootential.
The other option is to stay with the 1/2" 8 track and dump to a DAW...
 
I couldn't honestly tell much difference when I went from 1/2" 8-track to 1" 24-track. Both with DBX, mind, the difference would likely be starker if I was using them raw.

I have occasionally wondered about getting a 2" 24-track machine, a Soundcraft or an MX80 would actually take up about the same footprint as the MSR-24, but the tape cost would be staggering.
 
I lucked out with tape for my 2"....when I got the MX-80, about 30 reels of tape came with it, and since then I've picked up another 15-20 reels....so if I just use them for my own projects, I'm good to go for many, many years. :D

I always keep an eye out on eBay, and I also don't mind picking up used reels at cheap prices if they are in decent shape, and for the most part, Ampex/Quantegy 499 has been very good even when used, I've only gotten a couple of slightly funky used 499 reels, but the rest run like new. I also have like 15 reels of 3M 996, but I haven't used any yet, and a few reels of 456....but I just stick with the 499.
 
The reason why I asked about 1/2" 16 track machines is tape economy. I have a whole bunch of 1/2" tape and 1" and 2" tape costs considerably more.

I think the MX-70 looks like a fantastic machine and I would love to own one. If I had my way I'd own a 16-track MM1200 or MCI machine. I dunno if I can pony up the cash for all that anytime soon though.

I guess too that the other reason why I asked is because I'm an obsessive window shopper and I just like to ask people about their experiences :)
 
I too run 2" machines in my home studio. I have a lifetime supply of tape fortunately.

That Otari 2" is cheap for a reason. Its basically worthless without the remote.....
 
mdainsd said:
That Otari 2" is cheap for a reason. Its basically worthless without the remote.....
Click to expand...

Well....aren't they all... :)

I see remotes come up on eBay fairly regularly.
If you scored the MTR-90 for $400....and then found a remote even for as much as $1000 (but I've seen them go for like $300-$400)....you would still have a great deal. ;)
The complete MTR-90 decks tend to go fro $3k-$5k...depends.
 
There's a Tascam 48 for sale near where I live for £299. It has a few issues, but if I didn't already have two MSR16 and two MS-16 I think I'd jump on it.

Tascam 48 Eight 8 Track Vintage Reel To Reel Tape Recorder & Player | eBay

It may be that the seller bought it a month or so ago:

Tascam 48 reel to reel 1/4" Tape Recorder | eBay

It looks like the same machine?

Anyhow, I just wondered whether the OP was using the 48 without noise reduction?

Are spares for the 48 hard to come by?

I might be able to record straight to the MS16, the MSR16 and the MX2424 this weekend and post the recordings for anyone interested in the subtle differences.

Where would I post short WAV files because any MP3 files would surely make comparisons really difficult (WAV files might be difficult too).

Al
 
altruistica said:
Anyhow, I just wondered whether the OP was using the 48 without noise reduction?
Click to expand...

I'm using it without NR. It's aligned for SM468 at +6 over 185nW, and when I aligned it I decided I liked the sound better without NR. Just my personal taste / preference. I do own 8 channels of dbx NR though, I just don't use them. I'm holding onto them in case I change my mind later.

altruistica said:
Are spares for the 48 hard to come by?
Click to expand...

I have no clue. But when sweetbeats sold this machine to me he included quite a few spares.
 
Last edited:
Hi lo.fi,

If you're using the 48 without NR, doesn't that make bounces impossible say after the first one (or is that why you're wanting more tracks?).
Al
 
Having worked on some of each as well as calibration of them, I can say that when you go beyond the 1/2" 8 track to do more tracks on the same size tape that you are then traveling into dangerous territory.
I like to think of the 1/2" tape as a minimum for 8 track recording and 1" for a minimum for 16 track.
keep in mind these are not now being produced and the lack of heads and replacement parts are going to be a big problem to some. Case in point would be the Tascam 388 I get requests to work on all the time. I do not take them in as there are no new heads and they can fail at any time leaving you with all your material on a format that can not be recovered unless at great cost. You are better off in a format that has parts available such as heads (Check with John French on that), JRF Magnetics... and then use good tape and common sense. Yes the TSR 8 and lower track width machines do work but the likelihood that there will be a problem is made much worse in the lesser useable area of the magnetic surface. Dropouts can be worse, edge wear of the tape and heads can become bad and so on. When I recommend units to people it is from a Tascam 38 on up. If you are fortunate to have a 48 then that is great. I just tore apart a MSR16 as it was bought for parts- it rolled down the stairs I was told. Nice treatment of expensive equipment I would say. I was surprised by the size of the capstan motor to move 1" tape- way too small. I have some parts if you need them on the MSR16 now.
Yes tape is expensive when you play with the big boys. I understand that tape sales is on the increase according to rep Don Morris of RMGI.
 
altruistica said:
Hi lo.fi,

If you're using the 48 without NR, doesn't that make bounces impossible say after the first one (or is that why you're wanting more tracks?).
Al
Click to expand...

I have no problem without NR, because the way my machine is aligned, the way I EQ, and with the tape I use (SM468 or AGFA PEM 468), tape noise is virtually a nonissue. The need for additional tracks is because of the music I make. It's more like sound collage, it's freeform and I often won't know how I want to arrange each piece until I've laid down several tracks. I mix sounds from many sources, including samples and cassettes and field recordings. Instrumentation-wise I currently have only one mono synth and I have to multitrack it to get the complicated kinds of sounds that I want. If I had more synths I could cut down on bouncing dramatically.

Currently my equipment roster consists of a 1/4" four track, two cassette decks, a 1/4" 2T deck and the 1/2" 8T, and I often use them all together to create one stereo bounce. For example, I use the 4T to create background ambience mixes or for echo, I might have two cassettes going with drone sounds or additional layers of ambience, and then all of the "foreground" sounds will be on the 8T. The problem is, since I often don't know how I want the piece to sound until all the tracks are in place, or how I want to structure it in terms of the overall arc of the piece, if I want to go back and change anything, I can't. If I want to change the levels or EQ on any single track in those mixes then I'm stuck. If I had a 16 or 24 track machine, I could do it all in fewer passes and not have to bounce as much, and keep more control over the finished piece.

Does that make sense? I've been doing this for a few years and I'm still working out the best technique to achieve it (and how to describe what I'm doing!) The stuff I work on usually ends up requiring multiple bounces. The finished piece might contain cumulatively around 36+ tracks!

Realistically what I probably should do is set up a hybrid system where I can load up the 8T and then dump it into a DAW and do this multiple times so I have more control over each constituent "sub mix". I'm working out two things concurrently though - How to make the sounds I want to hear, and how to execute it on the technological / hardware side.

That's a really long answer but I hope it answers your question ;)
 
lo.fi.love said:
I have no problem without NR, because the way my machine is aligned, the way I EQ, and with the tape I use (SM468 or AGFA PEM 468), tape noise is virtually a nonissue. The need for additional tracks is because of the music I make. It's more like sound collage, it's freeform and I often won't know how I want to arrange each piece until I've laid down several tracks. I mix sounds from many sources, including samples and cassettes and field recordings. Instrumentation-wise I currently have only one mono synth and I have to multitrack it to get the complicated kinds of sounds that I want. If I had more synths I could cut down on bouncing dramatically.
Click to expand...

So, what you're doing is basically the same production technique that Wendy Carlos and Isao Tomita used. That's pretty impressive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top