new to tape - questions about 16 trackers

B

blumediaprojekt

New member
I'm working mostly in experimental electronic music and oddly enough, through the years I've found the computer to get so much in the way that the concept of taking it entirely out of my composition chain has become inspiring to say the least.

I don't have a whole hell of a lot of space right now to add equipment so even though I would love to immediately jump on a tascam MS-16 1" machine, I am almost forced to consider the 1/2" 16 track alternatives from fostex and tascam. I've been looking at the E16, G16, MSR-16....

My biggest question is out of concern. To the best of my knowledge, the track width on a 16 track 1/2" machine is equivalent to a standard consumer cassette. This worries me a bit. Am I wrong here? Is the track width actually not the same? So this question is mainly about general "sound quality".

My second question has to do with bass response. What sort of thunder can I expect from this format? I've noticed that some of these machines have the ability to run at 30ips. How much of a negative effect would this have on the bass response?



My last question. Does anyone have anything they'd be willing to share that's been recorded on this format or something similar, such as 1/4" 8 track? I'd love to hear anything.

thanks so much in advance to everyone,
adam
 
1- The sound quality will be better than the sound quality from your computer, even on a narrow format machine like the MSR-16.

2- There is plenty of low-end. However, certain bass material with a lot of subsonic sound (like a thundering locomotive) can make the noise reduction go crazy.

3- I've never run a machine at 30 ips. 15 ips seems to work just fine for me.

I don't have any of this kind of music recorded. I've owned two machines, the Tascam 388 (1/4" 8 track) and the Tascam MSR-16 (1/2" 16 track). The frequency response is a lot better on the MSR-16, however the 388 can be very convenient if you've limited space, as it is both a mixer and a recorder. The 388's frequency response is not as full because it runs at 7.5 ips, whereas the MSR-16 can run at either 7.5 or 15 ips. The 388 is more '70s sounding.

-MD
 
themaddog said:
1- The sound quality will be better than the sound quality from your computer, even on a narrow format machine like the MSR-16.
Click to expand...

this is debatable. "sound quality from your computer" is a vague statement. are we talking 16-bit digital audio here? 24-bit? what about sampling rate? 44.1? 88.2? 192? do you have decent AD/DA converters?

the OP is gonna have to be more specific about what they mean by "sound quality", but I do not think narrow format machines like the 388 are generally reagarded as "high fidelity".

whether you will be able to tell the difference will probably depend alot on your mixer and your monitoring.

bass shouldn't be a problem, the head bump at 15 IPS will probably be pleasing if you are looking for some big low end. this page might be interesting to check out http://www.endino.com/graphs/
 
blumediaprojekt said:
I'm working mostly in experimental electronic music and oddly enough, through the years I've found the computer to get so much in the way that the concept of taking it entirely out of my composition chain has become inspiring to say the least.

I don't have a whole hell of a lot of space right now to add equipment so even though I would love to immediately jump on a tascam MS-16 1" machine, I am almost forced to consider the 1/2" 16 track alternatives from fostex and tascam. I've been looking at the E16, G16, MSR-16....

My biggest question is out of concern. To the best of my knowledge, the track width on a 16 track 1/2" machine is equivalent to a standard consumer cassette. This worries me a bit. Am I wrong here? Is the track width actually not the same? So this question is mainly about general "sound quality".

My second question has to do with bass response. What sort of thunder can I expect from this format? I've noticed that some of these machines have the ability to run at 30ips. How much of a negative effect would this have on the bass response?



My last question. Does anyone have anything they'd be willing to share that's been recorded on this format or something similar, such as 1/4" 8 track? I'd love to hear anything.

thanks so much in advance to everyone,
adam
Click to expand...

cassette is 1/4" for 2 tracks. 16 track on 1/2" is much lower ratio per track, but that does not always mean lesser quality.
 
BTW, for the last few years I've been fortunate (or unfortunate) enough to define my music computer as a protools HD2 (running logic as well) system with an apogee rosetta 800 ad/da. I've currently got only one preamp which is an SSL dual-channel w/EQ. I've got a buddy who's helping me out with building some other pieces.

As for a tracking and rough mixing desk to go along with a tape machine...I've been looking at the allen & heath system8's, yamaha PM series, and the Tascam M520's.

I plan to run ADAT in and out of my soon-to-be mpc4k-plus @ 24/96 via the apogee just because I already own it. The rest of my instruments will remain connected to my patchbay as they currently are but with points added for the mixer instead of just the apogee to go to protools.

I monitor mostly via a pair of Mackie 824's.


I'd love to hear anything you've recorded @ 15ips or above....I'm actually very excited to. If you wouldn't mind, I really would appreciate it.
 
blumediaprojekt said:
My last question. Does anyone have anything they'd be willing to share that's been recorded on this format or something similar, such as 1/4" 8 track? I'd love to hear anything.
Click to expand...
It was used in a lot of budget commercial recordings in the late 80s and early 90s. I understand that a lot of Enya's stuff was done on the E16, and most of Bill Nelson's recordings from at least 1985-1995 were done on the B16. I'm not sure if he still uses that format or if he's gone digital. I think "Do You Dream In Colour?" was done on 2".

I don't have one myself, though.
 
jmorris said:
cassette is 1/4" for 2 tracks. 16 track on 1/2" is much lower ratio per track, but that does not always mean lesser quality.
Click to expand...

The standard Compact Cassette has four tracks on 1/8" tape. Remember, it has two tracks playing at once, but plays on both sides, and has four total tracks. The multitrack cassette machines generally also ran four tracks on a standard 1/8" Compact Cassette, though there were also 8 track units. 16 track on 1/2" tape would have a roughly similar track width to the standard Compact Cassette machine or a 4-track cassette multitracker or a 1/4" 8-track like the 388.

Cheers,

Otto
 
So there's the track width issue, but are we taking into account the fact that these 16track machines seem to generally run at 15ips, some even at 30?
 
there are 1/2" 16 track decks that run at 30 IPS? kinda surprised to hear that...

have you considered 1/2" eight track? or is that not enough tracks for you?
 
Hi_Flyer said:
this is debatable. "sound quality from your computer" is a vague statement. are we talking 16-bit digital audio here? 24-bit? what about sampling rate? 44.1? 88.2? 192? do you have decent AD/DA converters?

the OP is gonna have to be more specific about what they mean by "sound quality", but I do not think narrow format machines like the 388 are generally reagarded as "high fidelity".

http://www.endino.com/graphs/
Click to expand...

My MSR-16 at 15 ips always sounds better than my computer, which is through a Delta 44 - same mixer, same monitors. Even at 24/96 the MSR-16 sounds much better. I don't know that many people who are home recordists record on computer hardware that is much better than the Delta 44. That is not to say that the Delta 44 is particularly high-end, but that I believe it is representative of equipment that many home recordists use.

If you spend tons of money on a high-end computer with very high-end recording hardware and software, maybe you'd have a better sound than the MSR-16, but you'd have paid for an MSR-16, mixer, and some effects a few times over.

-MD
 
I really need 16 tracks. I've thought long and hard about this. If I want to be able to keep my stuff tracked out in a form sufficient for remix or mixdown at another studio, I really need at least 16, 24 would be great.
 
Hi_Flyer said:
there are 1/2" 16 track decks that run at 30 IPS? kinda surprised to hear that...
Click to expand...
Yes. There are some factory-modded Fostexes that run at 30IPS. I don't like the idea myself, not least because it'll wear the heads down more quickly and getting new ones is liable to cost far more than the recorder.
 
what's your budget blumedia? if you can spare the cash, go for the better format.

pro tools HD, apogee converters- it sounds like you are used to some better gear, you might be disappointed in 16 tracks on 1/2".
 
I'm not sure if it was mentioned but, if I'm not mistaken, the MSR16 does come with noise reduction built it, either S or dbx (I'm not sure which), which would make a huge difference in the end product, negating some of the effects of 'narrow track'.

------
 
My budget is flexible, my amount of space is not. If space was not an issue for me right now i'd go right for an MS-16 1".

Does anyone have any info or opinions specifically on the differences between the fostex E-16, G-16 and Tascam MSR-16?
 
blumediaprojekt said:
Does anyone have any info or opinions specifically on the differences between the fostex E-16, G-16 and Tascam MSR-16?
Click to expand...
I've heard that the Tascam's mechanism is a bit more robust - supposedly it's easy to bend the tension arms on the Fostexes. However, in terms of part availability you'd probably be better off with the Fostex. The heads are probably compatible between the B16, E16 and G16 so you'd have a wider pool of parts machines. The MSR-16 seems to be pretty rare and I'm not sure replacement heads for that machine are still available anyway.

I can't really comment on the difference in sound since I don't have either of these machines myself.
 
I've owned 1/4" 8 tracks and 1/2" 16 tracks. I really think they sound great especially on drums and well pretty much everything else :) But I don't mind stuff sounding lo-fi that much.

I use Pro Tools HD at times now and it does have better sound quality than 1/2" 16 track. From a fidelity standpoint that is. Everyones opinion of what is "better" can differ.
 
keep us posted on how it turns out. I am kinda interested to hear the opinion on analog from somebody with experience in better digital stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top