Cassette porta studios good enough for classical music?

[Vagodeoz]

I have a Tascam 414 mkII and I recently did a work with it, recording a chamber orchestra (only strings) and a choir.
It sounds warm like hell. Yes, it lacks a bit (bunch) in the upper end frequencies, but it has a great tone and character.
And I will probably will be doing some more orchestral recordings in the near future.
Do you think I should use my tascam 414 or something digital, like borrowing from a friend his Alesis Multimix 8 Usb?

 

[cjacek]

I have a Tascam 414 mkII and I recently did a work with it, recording a chamber orchestra (only strings) and a choir.
It sounds warm like hell. Yes, it lacks a bit (bunch) in the upper end frequencies,

I recall, several years ago, when I did a couple of recordings with my 414 MKII and a condenser microphone. Tons of low, mid and high end. Change microphones, clean the heads, use type II tape, record critical material in center of tape and watch your levels. You'll be fine.

 

[Vagodeoz]

Yeah, I used condensers, a x-y pair of Rode NT5 for the orchestra, and an AB pair of Behringer B2 for the choir. But cassette recorders never reach more than 15Khz. That is the missing top end I'm talking about.
And I DO use type II high bias tapes
By saying "in the center of the tape", you mean in the middle channels? Why?

 

[Vagodeoz]

(double post)

 

[cjacek]

Yeah, I used condensers, a x-y pair of Rode NT5 for the orchestra, and an AB pair of Behringer B2 for the choir. But cassette recorders never reach more than 15Khz. That is the missing top end I'm talking about.
And I DO use type II high bias tapes

Hmm, I must say I'm surprised 'cause I was getting plenty of hi end from my setup. That it doesn't reach more than 15khz is not an issue 'cause humans have a hard time hearing anything beyond that. Perceiving / feeling highest of the high frequencies is a different matter altogether but for purposes of your recordings, that you're having difficulties recording strings / choir and getting that high end is surprising. Can you post a clip in mp3 (at least 192)?

By saying "in the center of the tape", you mean in the middle channels? Why?

Yes, like your important (higher freq content) would go on track 2 or 3. Use edge tracks for lower end content, as this part of the tape is most prone to dropouts, as that's where it was slit.

 

[Vagodeoz]

Crap... I should have known earlier...
I did have a lot of dropouts Any way to avoid them?

I haven't uploaded anything from that recording, but here is another recording of an orchestra plus piano I did with almost the same setup.
But I also used a SM58 and a SM57 for reinforcing winds and percussion, and a RSM-2 for the Piano.
Rhapsody in Blue

And here is another recording I did of that same orchestra but on digital. This time with only the x-y NT5 pair, going through my Behringer Xenyx 2442FX and using as an interface the tiny USB interface it's bundled with.
Don't remember the name of the piece

You can indeed hear a notorious difference.
I tried adding a shitloads of highs to the tape masters but it can't add frequencies it doesn't record.
And as far as I know the hearing range for the average human is 20Hz to 20 Khz.

 

[drstawl]

Crap... I should have known earlier...
I did have a lot of dropouts Any way to avoid them?

And as far as I know the hearing range for the average human is 20Hz to 20 Khz.

The downfall of machines in this range is the noise floor.

No matter what you do they add their own hum/hiss track superimposed over whatever you record.

Even a digital interface far cheaper than the 414 will surpass the best these machines can do. And with Reaper there is no track count to get in the way.

Dropouts are typically crappy tape or spotty heads. No tape OR heads to deal with when recording digitally.

 

[cjacek]

Crap... I should have known earlier...
I did have a lot of dropouts Any way to avoid them?

I haven't uploaded anything from that recording, but here is another recording of an orchestra plus piano I did with almost the same setup.
But I also used a SM58 and a SM57 for reinforcing winds and percussion, and a RSM-2 for the Piano.
Rhapsody in Blue

And here is another recording I did of that same orchestra but on digital. This time with only the x-y NT5 pair, going through my Behringer Xenyx 2442FX and using as an interface the tiny USB interface it's bundled with.
Don't remember the name of the piece

You can indeed hear a notorious difference.
I tried adding a shitloads of highs to the tape masters but it can't add frequencies it doesn't record.
And as far as I know the hearing range for the average human is 20Hz to 20 Khz.

Several things came to mind when listening to the 414 track. I can hear hiss and also abnormal compression (pumping & breathing), which could be due to the misuse of the onboard dbx noise reduction. Did you record with dbx engaged and had it engaged on playback? Was dbx engaged or disengaged? Also, what were your recording levels like?

If you let me know with regard to the dbx issue, another trick is to boost a bit of highs on recording. (Making sure to set the EQ to neutral upon playback).

The way to avoid dropouts is to clean the heads after each session and use good, brand name tape and, ofcourse, use center tracks for your critical material.

Playback a 15khz and higher tones and let me know what you hear. A 20hz - 20khz is something from a spec sheet, picked up by sophisticated test gear / electronics. In reality most people simply can't hear the upper most frequencies.

From that 414 recording, I'd be surprised if anything over 10khz was being played back. The 414 is capable of much more hi fi recording and I know, 'cause I've had one.

 

[Beck]

I have a Tascam 414 mkII and I recently did a work with it, recording a chamber orchestra (only strings) and a choir.
It sounds warm like hell. Yes, it lacks a bit (bunch) in the upper end frequencies, but it has a great tone and character.
And I will probably will be doing some more orchestral recordings in the near future.
Do you think I should use my tascam 414 or something digital, like borrowing from a friend his Alesis Multimix 8 Usb?

It depends on the level of fidelity you’re looking for. The 414 MKII is a bit shy sonically speaking for serious recording of symphony or choral music. These newer generation units don’t compare to the legacy stuff. Well the 414 doesn’t even really compare to the 424 MKII.

It only manages a frequency response of 40Hz - 10kHz +/- 3dB; a channel separation of 40 dB; 2.0% distortion and 0.2% wow & flutter… not so hot. Unlike early full-size portastudios, the 414 class are really more or less idea/demo machines. And keep in mind frequency response is measured at -10dB or even -20dB, so it’s not even doing that well when pushing levels.

A high-quality cassette deck at normal speed with Dolby C will easily outperform something like the 414 or Porta 07.

I know it wasn’t in your list of resources, but the best option for a church or music hall is still a half-track open-reel deck @ 15 ips. Even a good consumer hi-fi reel-to-reel @ 7.5 ips will wipe the floor with a cassette deck.

Something like the compact TASCAM 22-2 or Fostex Model 80 are ideal for location recording.

 

[Vagodeoz]

Thanks guys!
I did try many of the things you say.
I used the Dbx noise reduction (in recording and playback). I also added top end before recording, but it still had a lot of the background hiss.
And I was trying to record it as loud as possible. But since it's classical music it has a lot of dynamics. There were really loud parts and really quiet parts, where the background noises are way more noticeable.
But I recorded the stereo mix on channels 1 and 2.... with lots of dropouts

I guess another down point was a really shitty mixer.
I was going to take my Behringer Xenyx 2442FX (the one I used for the digital recording) but they told me they had a mixer in there (I traveled about 100 Km to do that job). I asked them about the mixer and the guy couldn't get me the model, but he said it had 8 mic inputs. I though well, in the worst case it's going to be a Behringer (about the same as mine), so I didn't brought it.
When I got there it was a Peavey, and it did have 8 mic inputs.... but it was one of those live powered mixers...
The idea was to record each mike in it's own track, but I could only do 3 tracks, with the stero mix and the monitor. Ok, I lift the faders (knobs in this case) and after a while I say myself.... "hummm... when did I pan those things?!" I go back to the mixer and found no panning whatsoever...
It had a MONO main mix
So I ended up doing the "stereo" mix, using one knob for the left channel (main) and one knob for the right channel (monitor)

And for reel to reel... As much as I would love it, a reel to reel recorder just doesn't fit in a studio in Bolivia.
There is a guy here that is selling an used Nakamichi deck for 150$. That *might* be another option... I have about that money, but I'm getting a DMP3 soon, which I need more right now.

So I guess for now I will stick with digital, and try to make it a bit analogish with ribbon mikes and tube pres. Or maybe with a tape saturation plug-in (any suggestions?)

 

[cjacek]

Vagodeoz, you mean that you used the Peavey mixer as a front end to the tascam 414? You bypassed the 414 mixing section?

Do a simple test: dub one of your favorite commercial classical CD's DIRECT to the 414 and listen to the playback. How does it sound?

 

[Vagodeoz]

I'm not sure about what you mean with "bypassing" the 414 mixer.
I did the mixing in the peavey, since I had 4 condensers (and the 414 has only 2 mic ins without phantom) , and then I went into the 414's line ins.

 

[Beck]

So I guess for now I will stick with digital, and try to make it a bit analogish with ribbon mikes and tube pres. Or maybe with a tape saturation plug-in (any suggestions?)

Yes... don't use a saturation plug-in. It’s a gimmick. They make the sound different, but it doesn’t sound like tape. Tape plug-ins produce a caricature of tape sound.

As far as the noise you experienced, that could be a gain staging issue and/or the Peavey board. The powered Peavey boards made for live sound aren't known for being quiet. DBX NR won't help you there and you'll have the same noise/hiss problem using digital if the board is noisy.

You can do some things to minimize problems by turning off or bringing down all the faders except for the channels being used on the Peavey. However, it’s best to have your own mixer and recorder so you have control of the recording situation.

When I was recording music recitals and church choirs 20 years ago (Geeez, has it been that long?) I brought my own system – mixer, reel-to-reel, cables, mics, etc. If anything went wrong I didn’t have to rely on or troubleshoot someone else’s system. I did a couple gigs later with the TASCAM 246 and two PZM mics. I wish I had done that sooner… it would have saved me a lot of trouble and setup time. The recordings are outstanding (if I do say so myself) by any standard, then or now.

These days I would either use an older portastudio or a small reel-to-reel and mixer like the TASCAM 106. One reason I’ve ended up with a lot of compact equipment is I did a lot of location recording. I have the 22-2 (two of them) and an Akai GX-77. Both of these are easy to carry under one arm and don’t take up much space. They both use 7-inch reels.

Something I can say categorically in comparing open-reel to digital… the reel of tape will contain everything your mics and system are able to capture; your hard drive will not… but it will be acceptable by today’s standards.

One of the best recordings of a church choir I’ve ever heard was done by a friend and mentor in the late 70’s using a Pioneer home hi-fi reel-to-reel and a stereo pair plugged directly into the deck… that was all. I still have the recording on LP. It was a fairly new (at the time) low-profile 7-inch deck, but I don’t remember the model.

 

[jjones1700]

One of the best recordings of a church choir I’ve ever heard was done by a friend and mentor in the late 70’s using a Pioneer home hi-fi reel-to-reel and a stereo pair plugged directly into the deck… that was all. I still have the recording on LP. It was a fairly new (at the time) low-profile 7-inch deck, but I don’t remember the model.

More than likely, an RT-701/707. Those are the smallest of the Pioneer lot.

 

[cjacek]

I'm not sure about what you mean with "bypassing" the 414 mixer.
I did the mixing in the peavey, since I had 4 condensers (and the 414 has only 2 mic ins without phantom) , and then I went into the 414's line ins.

I meant not going direct into the 414 but rather using an external mixer. IMHO, the peavey might have been the problem because, strictly going from my own experience (with the 414), the 414 is capable of better fidelity than what your example recording shows.