Starting out on analog...what are the main considerations?

K

kartikbala

New member
Hi,

I'm thinking of plunging into analog recording, just for the fun of it, and I'm prepared for all the 'so-called' hassles that come along with it (cleaning, aligning etc).

Thought of going for a 1/4" 8-track jus so that I won't blow my wallet. If I really find that it's my cup of tea, then maybe I'll get a larger format later..but I digress...

The main thing I wanted to ask was, what all should I look out for when I get a tape machine. I'm eyeing one now, but it doesnt come with a manual or alignment tape or demagnetizer. Is this a bad thing? Can I get all these peripheral stuff from elsewhere?

Thanks for all your help..in advance!

cheers!
KB
 
The most important thing to look for in a tape deck is it's mechanical condition i.e. head/transport wear, belts (can you get replacements?) and electrical components (dirty/worn out pots & old, dried up caps).

Your biggest enemy with recording analog is noise/hiss but as long as you have a good front end, and use good tape at high speed you should get better sound quality than any cheap to MOR digital setup. The initial expense for the equipment will be cheap (compared to a good digital setup) but you will need to count on parting with a significant amount of cash to keep fresh tape on hand.

If I was going to go the tape route I wouldn't go for more than 4 tracks per .250 in. If you could get ahold of a good 2" 16 track that runs 30ips you would be at the pinnacle of analog in my book.

I'm sure some of the others here who have more first-hand experience will chime in.
 
Thanks Brane for your reply.

I'm aware that 1/4" 8-track isnt exactly great quality audio, and will probably be only marginally better than a casette tape 4-track.

My intention is to get a cheap analog multitrack so that I can learn the ropes of analog recording without spending too much cash. Then I can go for the larger format ones.

cheers!
 
Starting out on analog...what are the main considerations?
Click to expand...

1. Sound quality
2. Technical and mechanical ability.
3. Media costs.
4. Maintenance
5. System cost.
6. Portability
7. Patients
 
kartikbala said:
Thanks Brane for your reply.

I'm aware that 1/4" 8-track isnt exactly great quality audio, and will probably be only marginally better than a casette tape 4-track.
Click to expand...

Nono, it's much better. Really. No noise problems, and virtually transparent. You'll gonna need to put down some heavy money on the mixer and monitors before the sound degradation of a 1/4" 8-track is even noticeable. At least that's my experience with my Fostex A-8.

You are more likely to upgrade because you run out of channels. :) I make do with 8 since I run much from a sequencer.
 
Oh yeah, 8 track 1/4" is way better than cassette. Besides obvious track count the main quality difference is in the transport. The machine is much smoother and precise. The reels provide a better tape path than dinky cassette (which I love). I've even heard from people who like 1/4" better than 1/2" because of the low level tape saturation. They say that it gives more of the tape squash/analog sound. I don't know about that but I have heard some nice recordings from 1/4" tape.
 
My Fostex M80 has a MUCH MUCH better sound over any 4 track machine I ever used. Definatly pro level.

You should check the wear condition of the play/record magnetic head. These have the cost of a whole machine !! also check the mechanism and the plug connections. It can cost you too much to get one of these fixed !
 
I don't think you can seriously call it "analog recording" unless you're talking about 2" 24-track.............

Less than that and you're pretty much talking about compromises........
 
2" 24track is definitely way out of my league. I guess these narrower formats allow me to learn abt the basics of 'analog' recording without going bankrupt! :)

Anyway, have cleaned out the whole tape path. Now i'm waiting for the tapes that I've ordered to come in, so that I can start reeling! :)

cheers!
 
I have neither the room nor the money to buy, house, and maintain a 2" 24-track tape machine.

But it's really not a bad compromise; it's better than four-track 1/8" any day of the week.

I think I'd seriously call it analog recording. The machine uses tape, right? Yeah, it's only 1/2" but it beats the aforementioned format by miles.

Track width for 2" 24-track is roughly .083 compared to .0625 for 1/2" eight-track(including guard bands and track separation bands center to center). If both were running at 15 IPS or 30 IPS, there would not be a very drastic noticable difference in recorded quality, all else being equal.

My two cents.
 
I don't think you can seriously call it "analog recording" unless you're talking about 2" 24-track.............
Click to expand...

I don't think you can seriously call it "home recording" if your using a 2" machine. Even if is in your home facility. If you are, you should consider getting a commercial facility, because its obvious to most people here, first, if you have the resources to finance a 2" machine and its media habit, then your in another league, and probably drive a mercedes also. Second, to my way of thinking, there are a lot of people here spouting off from their ivory tower. Where you should be spouting off is Prorec, as the name here implies a hobby and avocation oriented forum, and if your doing it for income, then that is commercial and should be addressed as such. I'm sure the pros at prorec. com would be glad to address your concerns. And yes anything mahine below a 2" is analog, because it sure isn't defined as digital. I use 2-1/2" 16track synched machines, and I know perfectly well this is considered semi-pro, but that doesn't mean its sub-analog. On the contrary, it is at the top of "semi-pro" specification.
Second, for all of you who use anything less than a 2" transport, more fucking power to you, cause without you, the world of analog recording will eventually die. Unless of course, if BLUE BEAR type comments are to be taken as fact, then those of you who can afford a 2" machine. , better have the equivilant of a Neve console as well, or you still would not be considered as using "analog". And then, the whole rest of the signal chain is under the scrutiny of the analog criteria police. How much money you got? That whole view is actually preposterous, as any person using digital will tell you. But they are under scutiny also, as most pro studios consider anything other than PROTOOLS as not being "pro" digital:rolleyes: Who cares. This is HR.com, not PROREC.com, and when it does become "commercial" then I'm outta here.:rolleyes:
And by the way, have a great fucking time with your less than 2" analog!!!
fitz:D
 
Well, he may have been joking. Or something.

Everything is a compromise. A 2" 24-track is a compromise also. For example, you lose track-width versus a 2" 16-track, but you gain tracks (for that matter, you lose track-width versus a garden-variety 1/4" 2-track). Versus a 1" 16-track, you lose money and space, but gain some sonic qualities.

A great many classic albums were, of course, not recorded on 2" 24-tracks, since they didn't exist yet. A 1" 4-track is definitely not a 2" 24-track, right? A number of fairly okay records were made with them. Good machines, sure (expensive and big, too). A different compromise.
 
Hey Rick..........

LIGHTEN THE FUCK UP!!!!!!!!!!!!! *sheesh*

Anytime you want the pros here to leave buddy, so everyone can regale everyone else with accounts of which RS mic sounds better thru a battery-powered RS DJ mixer, you let me know........ :rolleyes:

My only point, - and I'm not saying this was the case here - was that many people say they're "going analog" and proceed to purchase a small format analog multitrack.

IMO, that's not "going analog" in the sense of representing or taking advantage of the sonic characteristics of high-quality analog sound........... you can't buy a PortaStudio and seriously call it "going analog" with the justification that the big boys are still using 2" 24-track or 1/2" 2-track and the small formats are of comparable quality to those!

And those older, pro-but-less-than-24-track type machines are still much higher quality than say the Fostex A80-type stuff and equivalents....

In the same vein, you can't compare the custom EMI 4-tracks used on the early Beatles recordings with a TEAC 3340..........! Totally different scale....

So.............. IMO, FWIW -- if you're going for budget analog for its sound characteristics, I'd suggest re-thinking and going digital -- you're fooling yourself if you think you're gaining a sonic advantage at the low-end of the analog scale.........
 
Last edited:
Blue Bear Sound said:
I don't think you can seriously call it "analog recording" unless you're talking about 2" 24-track.............

Less than that and you're pretty much talking about compromises........
Click to expand...
and

I don't think you can seriously call it "pro recording" unless you're talking about 2" 24-track.............

I don't think you can seriously call it "digital recording" unless you're talking about DASH format recordering including Sony PCM 3324, 3324S, 3348 .............

I don't think you can seriously call it "pro recording" unless you're talking about NEVE, API, Trident, SSL or Sony Oxford............

Etc, Etc, Etc............

Less than that and you're pretty much talking about compromises........
In audio engineering, everything is a compromise. A balance between, skill, equipment, talent and vision.


SoMm:D
 
tape is analog. Period

Are there variations and compromises? Sure, just like there are in everything else in Life.

Blue Bear - sorry but, while 2"/24 tr may be the Cadilac of analog, there are plenty of good Chevy's and Fords out there.

What is Pro? (first off, here in this forum, who cares, but)

I've got a Tascam 38. It's output is -10db. in some circles that's a definition of Not Pro, pro being considered +4db output.

Numerous gold and platinum albums have been recorded on Tascam 38's.... Then by application it is Pro......
-----------------

Kartikbala - don't worry about the semantics, enjoy learning with your new gear, and having fun with music. There's a 100+ flavors of ice cream out there, they all taste different. There are flavors within analog, and more flavors within digital (18 bit, 20 bit, 24 bit, processor types, software platforms, etc)

There is most definitely a significant difference between analog in general, and digital in general. In my experience - I have 3 different analog formats, and 2 different digital recording formats, there are differences between all 5 - But there is a commonality in the difference between the analogs and the digitals..... that is the analog difference we talk about here, and it is present in greater or lesser degree in all of the tape based systems.

Have a blast with your rig!

b-h
 
The real issues are inches per track and quality of tape. Blue Bear is right in that the big guys use 24 track 2" (0.083 ipt). Compare that to a Tascam 38 1/2" 8 track at (0.625 ipt). That 0.02 in does allow you to hit the tape harder without bleeding to the next track. The physics are the same, magnetic flux is the same, to put a signal on a narrow format, the amp must have a lower gain to the head. A 1/2" mixdown deck is 0.25 ipt... sweet.

I use a 16 track 1" deck with the same 0.0625 spacing... does it sound good? I think so. Does it sound as good as a 2" Studer? No way. If I end up going seriously commercial I will have to get a 2" deck no question about it.

The other issue is quality of tape. A 2" tape can carry more magnetic material per sq in then a 1/2" tape again this lets you hit it just a little harder and improves the signal to noise ratio of the deck.

Wider is better.

None of this means that a Tascam 38 does not serve a great purpose. I belive they are good decks and you may very well be happy with it... I'm not sure what they go for but it may be worth looking around more for a wider format.

blues-hacker - Where in NH are you? I'm in MA just over the border from Nashua.

Cheers
Kevin.


Wider is better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top