Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Reel to Reel

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Age
    86
    Posts
    63
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Question Reel to Reel

    Sign in to disable this ad
    Most of the instrumentals I've been writing lately have been on my acoustic guitar and I'd like to start putting them together on an album. The songs are solo works, but I do plan to layer two acoustic-guitar tracks and perhaps a 3rd track (Iíll probably record this first) containing wind chimes and other ambient effects. The thing is though, I've a strong feeling that recoding via a reel to reel would help color this sound nicely. It is difficult to describe what I'm after exactly - not noise, but something like the sound quality of 60's and 70's films perhaps - like the reverberated sound made by gunshots in old clint eastwood westerns : ).

    Also how could I go about investigating the different colorations available with different Reel to Reel models - what artists today are still committed to vintage analog recording and what models do they use.

    What models should I look out for and which should I avoid, Revox seen quite popular? And what mikes and mike pres would work well with these. Perhaps some of you guys are using vintage recorders and have some of your recordings online.

    Anyway, I'm totally lost, so if anyone could help me out it would be greatly appreciated. Also some of you might be feeling quite cynical about my remark above regarding the clint eastwood sound - and tell me to go out and buy the cheapest, raggedy old recorder I can find - but its a vintage sound I'm after and I guess I'm finding it difficult to explain it exactly - maybe someone will undestand what I'm on about. I'm basically trying to add character to the sound.

    Thanks.

    Also, heres a link to a song that is along the lines of what im talking about - ive no idea how it was recorded though.

    Hairpiece Lullaby by Sonic Youth

    http://www.audiogalaxy.com/list/sear...rpiece+Lullaby

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    in the studio, where else
    Posts
    4,359
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Rep Power
    4089745

    Analog is great!

    Hi, first off, there are armys in both camps, both with thier own idea of what is better.
    But as a musician, I have my own opinion about this. Naturally, everyone does. But I have both. I hate digital menus on the mixers, and spending DAYS trying to get a computer really setup for audio.I love analog, just reach over and hit the play button! But both have thier advantages and disadvantages. Personal recommendation #1 for analog. Get tascam. They stock most replacement parts for thier equipment, and its reel(pun) available, cheap, on ebay. But if you buy on ebay, have the seller guarantee he WON'T use UPS for shipping! They destroy shit right and left. Even insured, you can't get you $ back if its damaged. Been there, done that. Ok,
    #2- decide how many tracks you are going to ultimately going to use. Start there, or you will always be upgrading. I know, money is usually the determining factor. But if you have to save longer, you will be glad you did.
    #3 Go for either a 4 buss or 8 buss mixer. Go for a Tascam 38 reel to reel. or 238 cassette for multitracking. Fun! Go for a tascam 32 r/r or 122 mark111 cassette for mastering. Go for a shure- sm-58 dynamic mic for recording amps, go for a good quality($100) condenser mic for acoustic. Use a reciever for an amp. Don't spend more than $300 for monitors(unless of course you have the money) but then if you do, ignor the previous recommendations and get the best of everything(LOL)
    #4 If you are going to ultimatlely mix down to CD-consider digital as you will already have to have the computer/audio signal chain. But get ready for massive amounts of time spent on the forums and support as techo recording is mind boggeling, and unless your prepared to go the pro-tools route, keep the tylanol handy,constant headaches
    are the norm. Don't believe me? Check all the digital forums(here, sweetwater, tascam
    computer audio is TOUGH unless your a computer hip dude.
    #5 Don't take my word for this stuff. Check out the analog forums at tascam. You will be glad you did. Then check out the digital forums(woe is me forums) That should tell you. Like I said, there are armys in both camps.
    #6 The world is now digital. I just like analog cause its fun. But obsolete. Who cares.
    Unless your recording a hit record, you are just learning a new toy, but if you are serious about recording, consider digital. That is what is happening now, and will never go back. I'm just an old fart set in my ways. Thats not to say that digital is not withing my grasp. Already have it. But my studio is not meant for clients. Only fun. I have more fun with analog.
    fitz

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    I live alone with my gear
    Age
    58
    Posts
    9,022
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 29 Times in 24 Posts
    Rep Power
    3562768

    I'll just keep it brief,...

    and say I agree 100% with Rick Fitzpatrick.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Age
    37
    Posts
    46
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    me too

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    3,102
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Rep Power
    177346
    Me three!
    Just wanted to point out that Bob Katz, the noted mastering engineer,
    recommends analog over digital as a "front end" (more cost effective!)
    His website is www.digido.com to read more details.

    Chris

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Age
    48
    Posts
    8,567
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Rep Power
    521887
    Just to be a pain I'm going to disagree with everyone

    Digital is SOMETIMES hard to get up and running but not always. Home made DAWs can be a pain but once you get them going you are done until you decide to upgrade something. A stand alone digital recorder can be used just as basically as an analog. It's when you WANT to do the more complex functions that it becomes a little tedious. But nobody is forcing digital users to cut and paste or edit clicks and pops with a waveform editor.

    Analog has it's own set of headaches and they are more of a maintenance issue so it's never ending. Head cleaning and alligment, bias adjustment, worn part replacements, etc.

    "Warmth" is acheived through your choice of instrument, mics, pres, compression and effects. If you absolutely want analog tape compression and hiss you can always mixdown to an analog format.

    A 2 track machine is much easier to maintain and will usually give you more tape width per track so you can get better fidelity for less money.

    Bob Katz's site is great but some of those articles are pretty old. Much of his disdain for home digital applied to the first 16bit systems and obviously the economics have changed considerably in the last 10yrs. There is no way that running an analog multitrack is cheaper than digital.

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
  •