so i've decided that i'm kind of tired of only having 8 tracks (adat), and at the same time im tired of digital. So im thinking a 16 track reel to reel sounds fantastic. But getting an affordable 16 track like the fostex e-16 or g-16 makes me nervous because it's still only 1/2 inch. Ive been looking at the 16 track 1" otari's.. but man are those expensive and not too common either. So i guess my question is, how much of a difference is there really? I could get a TSR-8 or something for now but i know eventually i'm going to want a 16 track. thanks.
16 track
- Thread starter Kasey
- Start date
The Ghost of FM
Banned
There's also the TASCAM MS16 which show up on ebay every now and then, usually for local pick up because of the weight and bulk being similar to the Otaris.
The MS16 is a one inch, 16 track with optional dbx, auto locater and remote track arming kit. I've owned mine for close to 10 years now and while I have had to do a fair bit of maintenance on it to keep it running like new, it has rewarded me with many really great recordings and the sound quality will not disappoint you in the slightest. It sounds lush and if used with dbx will actually offer a quieter noise floor then digital and far more dynamic too.
Ideally, buying a machine of this class should be done in person so that you can fully check it out before you commit to buying it but that's not always possible depending on where you live. I was lucky enough to find a local seller when I bought mine and was able to fully check it out and negotiate a price with the seller instead of getting into a bidding war on an unseen unit that may or may not survive the shipping if you can't be there to pick it up.
Buying machines of this type is a lot like buying a used car. Expect to put additional funds into maintenance and especially so when the price seems to low or the seller pleading ignorance about its fitness, which most ebay sellers do these days.
Cheers!
The MS16 is a one inch, 16 track with optional dbx, auto locater and remote track arming kit. I've owned mine for close to 10 years now and while I have had to do a fair bit of maintenance on it to keep it running like new, it has rewarded me with many really great recordings and the sound quality will not disappoint you in the slightest. It sounds lush and if used with dbx will actually offer a quieter noise floor then digital and far more dynamic too.
Ideally, buying a machine of this class should be done in person so that you can fully check it out before you commit to buying it but that's not always possible depending on where you live. I was lucky enough to find a local seller when I bought mine and was able to fully check it out and negotiate a price with the seller instead of getting into a bidding war on an unseen unit that may or may not survive the shipping if you can't be there to pick it up.
Buying machines of this type is a lot like buying a used car. Expect to put additional funds into maintenance and especially so when the price seems to low or the seller pleading ignorance about its fitness, which most ebay sellers do these days.
Cheers!
cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
Kasey said:
My recommendation may be unorthodox but I feel you should get a couple of 8 track, 1/2" tape machines, such as the TASCAM 38 and bounce if / when needed. These are common machines, not too expensive, sound very good and I don't think your musicianship will suffer with such "limitations". Damn, the Beatles did it with much less for the most part of their career and no one has ever accused them and their productions of sounding less than stellar. Think about it. It could be fun, a cool funky adventure!
Attachments
The Ghost of FM
Banned
It would be as difficult as finding an appropriate synchronizer like the MTS-1000, the proper sync cables, giving up a track on each machine for the time code, buying two TSR8's, two rolls of half inch tape and learning how to operate the whole affair.Kasey said:
I think once all that is said and done, you'll be no further ahead financially and end up with a fairly bulky and complex set up and only 14 tracks instead of 16.
The original idea of syncing up two multi-track machines was aimed more so at doing this with two 24 track machines as there never existed a 46 track analog recorder for music production work and this was the only way to go about achieving this.
To do that with two 8 track machines is not practical or logical when there's an obtainable supply of 16 track decks out there.
Cheers!
up-fiddler
Taming the World--for now
I have an MSR16 and have had good luck with it so far. (Knocking on wood) I had it shipped half way across the country and it only cost $125s/h. It works fine for the projects I run. (Usually no drums, 12-15 tracks of vox, instruments, and drum machine.) Try one somewhere first though. Just my $.02.
jpmorris
Tape Wolf
The Ghost of FM said:To do [sync] with two 8 track machines is not practical or logical when there's an obtainable supply of 16 track decks out there.
Cheers!
Since I'm currently trying to do this, I'll just give my reasons for embarking on this project:
1. The TSR-8 is easier to transport than a 1" 16-track unit
2. There are more of these machines and parts are more widely available
3. If syncing doesn't work there's always track bouncing as a backup
4. Prior investment in 1/2" 8-track format
5. Because it was there.
Having said that, I must admit that if I was starting from scratch I'd probably looking at a 1/2" 16-track or 1" format.
cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
Kasey said:
I didn't mean to sync 2 recorders but rather recording onto one, mixing onto the other's 2 tracks, for example, filling up the remaining tracks and even going back again to the other ... if you need more than 16 tracks.
Thats what I meant in my original reply...... Or, just get one 8 track, 1/2" recorder and learn to bounce (on same recorder) in order for you to have more than 8 tracks available. I have been using a Tascam 38 with no NR for the past several months on projects involving as many as 20-30 tracks with no trouble. The trick is to plan ahead and record fairly hot, and make sure that your heads are properly calibrated. I had some trouble before getting a professional alignment done, but I can now bounce two or three times with no appreciable loss in quality, though at 3+ bounces noise buildup can become a real issue. But you shouldn't really ever have to bounce anything more than once or twice if you plan ahead.
B
Beck
Guest
I like bouncin' but I keep it to a minimum... no more than one bounce of any signal. I use MIDI and sync extensively, so I sacrifice 1 track, running an 8-track sequencer and R8 drum machine. That leaves me 7 tracks for vox, acoustic instruments and non-MIDI synths.
The E16/G16 and MSR16 sound really good to me though. If I needed more analog tracks I would be happy with either. The down side is parts availability. Fostex has no support for reel-to-reel and TASCAM has discontinued the MSR16 head.
Syncing two TSR-8s is a bit cumbersome. It’s more practical for A/V applications. Personally I wouldn’t want to have two ½” tapes to juggle, but I’m lazy.
I would probably get a 16-track before it came to that.
The E16/G16 and MSR16 sound really good to me though. If I needed more analog tracks I would be happy with either. The down side is parts availability. Fostex has no support for reel-to-reel and TASCAM has discontinued the MSR16 head.
Syncing two TSR-8s is a bit cumbersome. It’s more practical for A/V applications. Personally I wouldn’t want to have two ½” tapes to juggle, but I’m lazy.
I would probably get a 16-track before it came to that.Attachments
Last edited:
jpmorris
Tape Wolf
Beck said:Syncing two TSR-8s is a bit cumbersome. It’s more practical for A/V applications. Personally I wouldn’t want to have two ½” tapes to juggle, but I’m lazy.
Yes. On the assumption that I will be able to make it work, the plan is to do a rough mix on the second machine (copying/regenerating the stripe from #1 at that point), lay down the new tracks and only lock them together at mixdown.
how would a tascam MS-16 stack up against an Otari MX-70? they seem to be pretty similar machines. possibly different noise reduction? different... anything? Im sure theyre both good but does anyone have a preference?
also, i've heard great things said about 1/2" 8 track sound in general, but ive seen some people scoff at 1" 16 track sound, saying things like its really only good for demos.... shouldn't they sound exactly alike? Am i missing something or are people just retarded?
also, i've heard great things said about 1/2" 8 track sound in general, but ive seen some people scoff at 1" 16 track sound, saying things like its really only good for demos.... shouldn't they sound exactly alike? Am i missing something or are people just retarded?
The Ghost of FM said:It would be as difficult as finding an appropriate synchronizer like the MTS-1000, the proper sync cables, giving up a track on each machine for the time code, buying two TSR8's, two rolls of half inch tape and learning how to operate the whole affair.
I think once all that is said and done, you'll be no further ahead financially and end up with a fairly bulky and complex set up and only 14 tracks instead of 16.
The original idea of syncing up two multi-track machines was aimed more so at doing this with two 24 track machines as there never existed a 46 track analog recorder for music production work and this was the only way to go about achieving this.
To do that with two 8 track machines is not practical or logical when there's an obtainable supply of 16 track decks out there.
Cheers!
I have one TSR and the midiizer, though I bought it for the remote function alone as I could not locate an RC-408 after searching for months. I wouldn't bother buying another TSR for more tracks either, nor would I buy a 16 track 1/2 inch. I simply record out to CD and bounce back into two tracks of the TSR freeing up the rest. It seems doing it this way there is almost no noticeable loss in quailty, it sounds better then bouncing within the TSR.
cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
Kasey said:
Although I can't speak of the difference between the MS-16 vs the MX-70, I think that when you get to that point of quality the differences are negligible. Your most important issue is the condition of a particular machine and support for it.
A properly operating and aligned 1/2" 8 track will sound very good and so will a 1" 16 track. Yes, they would sound similar and it could be argued that components used in the wider formats would be of higher quality thus yielding more quiet recordings. All in all, I think both formats can sound outstanding provided they're in tip top shape. As for people who scoff at this format, let them be. They have their own reasons.
Last edited:
The Ghost of FM
Banned
TASCAM and Otari at that level and format will be similar but not identical in that both machines use their own head designs and electronics to feed the tracks and then reproduce it.Kasey said:
There was a site which had the graphs of various machines for those who buy into that methodology of shopping for a machine but in the end, you'll have to take a test drive of both to see if you can spot and pick the differences with your own ears.
As far as the 1", 16 track format being considered a "demo" quality only, I would hope that those opinions were formed by people who owned 2", 16 track recorders and could hear the differences in the depth and detail of the sound between the two. There will be differences for sure but to term it as "demo" might be far less then honest or accurate. Thousands of commercial releases have been done of this format of machine and I'm sure the overwhelming majority of the listeners were none the wiser.
Something to always keep in mind when talking about sound quality is that there are numerous variables that factor into the final results such as your outboard gear, your mixer, your monitoring system and acoustics, your microphones and most importantly, the quality of the musicianship being captured and the skills of the engineer/producer to put it all together. So often we get hung up on the tools of the trade and concentrate too little on the end product. Why do I bother to mention this? Because we need to keep things in perspective and know that our equipment alone, no matter how cool it is, can't make the music by itself.
Cheers!
Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
those who do - end up with protools. (Uhhhh, unless otherwise requested by a customer , but of courseThe Ghost of FM said:
)btw, thanks for NOT linking-directing to that site. Because the methodology of getting those graphs is questionable (softly speaking, that is). Also, speaking of analog machines' graphs, two (the same model) machines side-by-side will "spit out" non-matching graphs, well, under circumstance they may get pretty close though, if the "investigator" really puts his mind and acts together and gets (makes) those machines acting like twin-clones. (say, both are fresh from the box and just has been tweaked to death by a authorized and certified professional
)I know, I'm BS-ing , as usually
/respects
Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
First of all, this is a good and an imortant point.The Ghost of FM said:
Second, (may I stress the unstressable
?),The term "demo quality" is not a descriptive but rather is a manipulative one. It's one of those terms that are being used to "guide" a consumer through endless array of halls, stairs and levels in The Palace Of Products and Services. "Welcome to The Palace. Please, stay and keep walking, there is always a higher level here. "