Since I didn't get much out of my last thread.....

Outlaws

Outlaws

New member
I would really like to go to a studio and do all my tracking and mixing on tape. I am more than willing to spend the money on a couple rolls of 2" tape. I would like to find a studio with the 16 track 2" machines. (I know its more important to find a quality studio, but there is nothing wrong with at least looking as to how good the studios with specific equipment are.)

So if I cannot find a 16 tracks studio, or if the studio is just garbage.......will I be the only person in the world to walk into a studio and only record about 8 - 12 tracks MAX on a 24 track machine?
 
I know Mix Magazine used to publish directories of studios in the States and Canada and listed them by area and how many tracks they had. There used to be extensive listing of what each studio had in the way of recorders so you might start with them and purchase a directory from them to find something in your area.

Good luck in your search! :)
 
Thanks, I have tried doing searches but the second you enter in the phrase "16 track" you get a hundred places and they are all Roland, Akai, and Korg digital recorders.
 
Outlaws said:
So if I cannot find a 16 tracks studio, or if the studio is just garbage.......will I be the only person in the world to walk into a studio and only record about 8 - 12 tracks MAX on a 24 track machine?
Click to expand...

Well, no. But don't exclude 1" 16 track studios. That format is more common than the 16 track 2", and it sounds good enough. And the studios with it are probably cheaper. :)

And if you have tracks over, you can save several takes on the tracks you aren't using, and make up your mind when you mix. Or, just doubletrack to get a phat sound. :)
 
The cost difference between 16 track and 24 track 2" tape means nothing. $200 a reel typically. I think alot of people don't realize that in some cases, the number of tracks actually used when doing 24 isn't really 24. We use safety tracks, and lots of tracks for comping vox and what not, so 24 is more of a luxury than anything. I do lots of 16 tracks stuff now so it means doing things better, and doing it right the first time all the way through. When doing 24 tracks your muting the crap and your usually all over the console fading... extra instruments are recorded you may not use etc... You may have 12 to 16 tracks of good music, but like I said..24 can ease some of the pain. Its always nice to have a little extra horsepower when passing on blind corners:)

Not even close to being the first...



SoMm
 
You are right that the tape cost isnät significant. But the nicer the equipment in the studio, the more expensive the studiotime, typically. Which can make for a lot of extra studio hours in the end. I would tend to think that the surer you are that you can track the songs quickly, the more it would be worth to pay per hour.

If you have a band who can play the songs perfectly in their sleep, it would make perfect sense to go for an expensive studio and do everything live. 4 hours to set up, 4 hours to track (averaging 3-4 takes per song) and 4 hours to mix, and you have a CD. :)
Remember, the Beatles first album was recorded in one day, with them simply playing through every song they knew live, and then just selecting the best songs to make an album. :p

Now, if you rather want loads of time, you'd better get something with lower per hour cost. Which of course is why I record everything in my home studio. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top