Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33

Thread: Which 16 track Recorder??

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Hull, England.
    Age
    38
    Posts
    43
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Question Which 16 track Recorder??

    Sign in to disable this ad
    Hello all, I'd like a little advice on which 16-track recorder to purchase. A while ago I was after going 8-track, but I've decided to go to 16-track now!
    At the moment, I've got offers of a Fostex G-16, or the TASCAM MSR16 - they're both in good condition. Which one would you guys recommend? Or is there another model I should be looking at etc....?

    Any advice is massively appreciated.

    Cheers,

    Rich

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Leicester, UK
    Posts
    2,417
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Rep Power
    57330
    The Fostex uses 1/2" tape, the Tascam 1". You'll get better quality from 16 tracks on 1", plus the Tascam will probably be better built.

    Bill, Dan Dave and FM will be here to back me up shortly; no doubt

    Incidentally: how much do you have to spend on this item?
    Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital recording is a pretty neat idea.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Gone
    Age
    58
    Posts
    7,703
    Thanks
    130
    Thanked 222 Times in 211 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    The TASCAM MSR16 is a 1/2 inch machine. But, I do agree that it is a better built unit and offers superior noise reduction with dbx or the newer Dolby S version.

    If you are wanting a one inch model, the MS16 or ATR60-16 would be the ones to consider. They would offer the same track width as a half inch, eight track machine and offer the same or, slightly higher level of fidelity.

    Cheers!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Leicester, UK
    Posts
    2,417
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Rep Power
    57330
    Damn. I got the MSR16 and MS16 mixed up. AGAIN
    Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital recording is a pretty neat idea.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Hull, England.
    Age
    38
    Posts
    43
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Thanks for the replies Mark and Ghost of FM. To answer your question Mark, I've not really set a budget aside, but I'm think I could get the TASCAM for around 500 which sounds good as I'm assured it's in mint condition.

    I'm a little confused by what you meant when on the subject of 1 inch 16-trackers you said "They would offer the same track width as a half inch, eight track machine and offer the same or, slightly higher level of fidelity." (Sorry I'm still an amateur at the moment!)

    Thanks again for your reply, I think I'm gonna go for the TASCAM as everyone has said they're the best!

    Cheers,

    Rich

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Gone
    Age
    58
    Posts
    7,703
    Thanks
    130
    Thanked 222 Times in 211 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    When I made reference to track width , I was referring to the individual width of one track.

    So, if we assume the lotus position, clear our minds and think deeply here for just a sec, we will quickly see that if you have 8 tracks spread out on 1/2 inch tape, we will also have the same track width with a 16 track, spread across one inch machine.

    Of coarse, if you weren't considering a 1/2 inch, 8 track machine prior to your posting of this thread, this will all sound like sheer madness on my part.

    Cheers!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Leicester, UK
    Posts
    2,417
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Rep Power
    57330
    Well, if you think about it the width of the heads on a standard semi-pro 1/4" R2R 4 Track is about 0.043". If you double the width of the tape to 1/2" and double the number of tracks to 8 the size of the heads stays the same. Likewise, if you double both again. I think the reason a 1" 16 track is likely to offer a higher level of fidelity than a 1/2" 8 track is because with 16 tracks available you're less likely to need to bounce tracks to make room for more material.
    Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital recording is a pretty neat idea.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Hull, England.
    Age
    38
    Posts
    43
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Ahhh I see! It's making more sense to me now. Would there be any difference in the sound quality of a 16-track 1/2 inch, and an 8 track 1/2 inch? I'm presuming there wouldn't be?

    Cheers for your help guys, this is my last question I promise!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Gone
    Age
    58
    Posts
    7,703
    Thanks
    130
    Thanked 222 Times in 211 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    you're less likely to need to bounce tracks to make room for more material.
    Ahh! There's the rub!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Leicester, UK
    Posts
    2,417
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Rep Power
    57330
    The recording and reproduction quality on a 1/2" 8 Track will be higher than on a 1/2" 16 Track, simply because the heads will be wider on the former. However, you have to weigh that up against the possibility that you're more likely to bounce tracks to make room for more material on an 8 track than on a 16. So, it probably evens out in the end.
    Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital recording is a pretty neat idea.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •