thefiremelted
New member
i heard you can cover up the eraser head with a piece of tape, and therefor achieve multitracking with a normal tape recorder. the problem is, im a newb and dont know which head the eraser head is. any help?
isnt there a cheater way to multitrack with an average cassette recorder?
- Thread starter thefiremelted
- Start date
DigitalSmigital
A slice of analog pie?
Do you mean "partially cover up"?
Because that doesn't make sense to me, either.
No, you can't record one track over another track.
Because that doesn't make sense to me, either.
No, you can't record one track over another track.
thefiremelted
New member
someone told me that if you cover the eraser head, you could
oh well
oh well
mawtangent
New member
I had an experience with my Yamaha MT-50 4-track that sort of pertains to your question.......I was re-recording a friend's vocals on track 2 (since his first try was riddled with mistakes), this would normally erase his first take. But we found that his first vocal was still present on the track (it sounded like a chorus effect and bad back-up singing where he didn't sing the words the same).......the other 3 tracks erased properly when re-recording on them.......I had it repaired and according to the bill there was a disconnected wire on track 2 (I assume to the eraser head).
So I think it is possible to record two (or more) different sounds onto one piece of tape at two different times by disabling the eraser-head (sort of like a double exposure photograph........I've seen surreal pictures that might have a guy sitting on a step and overlapping the whole picture is a scene of trees and sky........where two different pictures were taken on one frame of film.)
The problem though seems to be that you can never make a mistake throughout the whole recording of the song (if you do you have to start all over at at the beginning of the first "track" with clean/erased tape) and you have limited control over how the final volume levels of different parts will turn out (though with trail and error it would be seem to be somewhat possible). It doesn't seem practical for any semi-serious attempt to record a song...though it might work as a practice tool for laying down a rhythm guitar and then adding a lead ("on top" of that rhythm guitar")
So I think it is possible to record two (or more) different sounds onto one piece of tape at two different times by disabling the eraser-head (sort of like a double exposure photograph........I've seen surreal pictures that might have a guy sitting on a step and overlapping the whole picture is a scene of trees and sky........where two different pictures were taken on one frame of film.)
The problem though seems to be that you can never make a mistake throughout the whole recording of the song (if you do you have to start all over at at the beginning of the first "track" with clean/erased tape) and you have limited control over how the final volume levels of different parts will turn out (though with trail and error it would be seem to be somewhat possible). It doesn't seem practical for any semi-serious attempt to record a song...though it might work as a practice tool for laying down a rhythm guitar and then adding a lead ("on top" of that rhythm guitar")
Rokket
Trailing Behind Again
This all sounds like something you don't want to do as it will eventually mess up a decent tape recorder. The only way I've found to do what you are talking about will take 2 different recorders with mics (built in or not), and two or more tapes. This is the way I used to do it, but keep in mind, eventually, there will be a degradation in the recording quality.
I would record my first track straight to my recorder, play it back and listen for levels, mistakes, etc. Then I would set up a second recorder with a blank tape, my amp and the first recorder in an X,Y pattern, hit record on the second player, play the first one, and play my "second" track along with it.
This method is tedious and if you make a mistake.... you know. Your best bet is to invest in a decent 4 track. They are getting cheaper all the time as digital takes over the market.
I would record my first track straight to my recorder, play it back and listen for levels, mistakes, etc. Then I would set up a second recorder with a blank tape, my amp and the first recorder in an X,Y pattern, hit record on the second player, play the first one, and play my "second" track along with it.
This method is tedious and if you make a mistake.... you know. Your best bet is to invest in a decent 4 track. They are getting cheaper all the time as digital takes over the market.
mawtangent
New member
Hey Rokket......I did that same thing (two tape recorders, back and forth) many years ago when I probably didn't know what multitracking was or knew I couldn't dream of ever having access to it myself (thankful for affordable technology).....I agree with you about getting a 4-track...I would only try the above (as a last resort) with a cheap $25 dictation recorder...I just got into what was possible "in theory".
The Ghost of FM
Banned
Why yes, there is.
Steal one of these!
. But it is cheaper that way!
Farview
Well-known member
Two things
1. what would you cover the erase head with to shield magnetism from the tape?
2. you would not be able to hear what was on the tape for you to play along with it.
A computer mic, soundblaster, and one of those cheap (or free) multi-track software packages will get you a lot farther than a stereo cassette player.
1. what would you cover the erase head with to shield magnetism from the tape?
2. you would not be able to hear what was on the tape for you to play along with it.
A computer mic, soundblaster, and one of those cheap (or free) multi-track software packages will get you a lot farther than a stereo cassette player.
analogelectric
New member
Farview stole my thunder but yeah, I don't think that would work successfully due to it's a process of magnetism and scotch tape doesn't cancel out magnetism. I'd venture to say there would be lots of bleed. Plus how would you monitor the individual tracks? IF you were to get it to work in some magical MacGuyver way you'd still have to deal with individual track output.
It's a good IDEA but not a practical one.
I used to bounce tracks with a stereo tape recorder with dismal results, degradation is quickly apparent. I have had some impressive results with a cassette 4-track and either a DAT or MiniDisc recorder/player for bouncing parts back and forth. You'd be much happier with a 4-track if you want to stay away from DAW's.
-- Adam Lazlo
It's a good IDEA but not a practical one.
I used to bounce tracks with a stereo tape recorder with dismal results, degradation is quickly apparent. I have had some impressive results with a cassette 4-track and either a DAT or MiniDisc recorder/player for bouncing parts back and forth. You'd be much happier with a 4-track if you want to stay away from DAW's.
-- Adam Lazlo