Technics RS-1700
- Thread starter crbp742
- Start date
jpmorris
Tape Wolf
I'm not sure it can, but it's hard to say. It looks like a very nice semi-pro machine, capable of 15 ips. What it needs to do that I don't think it can is record in stereo over the full width of the tape. Consumer decks record over half the width so you can flip the tape over like a cassette and record on the other side, but at a cost of lower quality and with the possibility of crosstalk between the two sides. The other thing about the Technics is that I'm not sure it can bias up to modern tape formulations like RMGI SM911, SM900 or ATR tape.
If you only need a stereo deck, consider a Revox PR99 if you can find one. They were used a lot in broadcast. Higher up the food chain are things like the Studer A807 or the Otari MTR-10, but they are considerably heavier and bulkier.
Bear in mind that with a stereo deck, you don't usually get the ability to overdub, i.e. you can't record the drums and then go back and record vocals or something else on top. The normal procedure is to record the individual tracks to a multi-track machine with 4, 8, 16 or 24 tracks. Then, once the song is ready for mixing, it is then played back through the mixing desk and the stereo recorder is used to capture the stereo mix.
A lot depends on what you're intending to do. What some people do these days is do all the multitrack work and mixing on a computer and then record the stereo master to tape to give it more character.
If you need a multitrack deck, there's a lot to choose from. You probably want to start out with something like a Fostex R8, or maybe a TASCAM 388 - these decks give you 8 tracks to record on and use 1/4" tape which is cheap and readily available. The 388 has a built-in mixer. For 16 tracks, look at something like the TASCAM MSR-16 or Fostex E16, which use 1/2" tape.
There are higher-end options like the 1" TASCAM MS16, MSR24 or actual 2" studio decks, but they will be expensive to run - a lower-end deck would be a better choice if you're still finding your feet.
If you only need a stereo deck, consider a Revox PR99 if you can find one. They were used a lot in broadcast. Higher up the food chain are things like the Studer A807 or the Otari MTR-10, but they are considerably heavier and bulkier.
Bear in mind that with a stereo deck, you don't usually get the ability to overdub, i.e. you can't record the drums and then go back and record vocals or something else on top. The normal procedure is to record the individual tracks to a multi-track machine with 4, 8, 16 or 24 tracks. Then, once the song is ready for mixing, it is then played back through the mixing desk and the stereo recorder is used to capture the stereo mix.
A lot depends on what you're intending to do. What some people do these days is do all the multitrack work and mixing on a computer and then record the stereo master to tape to give it more character.
If you need a multitrack deck, there's a lot to choose from. You probably want to start out with something like a Fostex R8, or maybe a TASCAM 388 - these decks give you 8 tracks to record on and use 1/4" tape which is cheap and readily available. The 388 has a built-in mixer. For 16 tracks, look at something like the TASCAM MSR-16 or Fostex E16, which use 1/2" tape.
There are higher-end options like the 1" TASCAM MS16, MSR24 or actual 2" studio decks, but they will be expensive to run - a lower-end deck would be a better choice if you're still finding your feet.
So basically I use the Multitrack deck to do all my tracking, then use the Stereo deck for mastering? Thanks a lot for the help!!
But what if I got one of the 1 inch Tascams like you mentioned? Then would I still need a stereo deck? Again this may sound stupid, but those stereo ones you recommended are all half inch or under, so wouldn't transferring it from 1 inch tape to 1/2 inch tape cause some quality loss?
Last edited:
jpmorris
Tape Wolf
Yes. Though you could use a tape multitrack and mix to a computer as the stereo recorder, or you could do all the tracking on computer and mix to tape.
Personally I prefer to do everything on tape because that's the way it used to be done and it's interesting and different from how most people work these days.
Here's an example of a song I mixed a couple of years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvEqd8I0DXQ
The multitrack machine is an MSR-24, but at the time I got it I only had 20-channel mixer, so I tend to leave tracks 1 and 2 empty, 24 for timecode and 23 as a guard band to stop the timecode leaking into the rest of the song (narrow-track formats like 1" 24-track or 1/2" 16-track can have a certain amount of cross-talk between them).
Timecode is useful if you're using a computer sequencer to produce the music, a timecode track contains timing data which can be used to synchronize the computer (or another tape deck) with the multitrack recorder, but it's not something you generally need to have right from day one.
On the right is a Studer A807 which I'm recording the stereo mix onto. The multitrack is played back through the mixing desk, the stereo recorder is put into record and I adjust the faders to taste while this happens. Really automation would be nice but a mixing desk that can do that is a bit outside my budget.
If you look closely you can see the VU meters on the MSR-24. According to my notes from the tape box, the track layout is:
3 - bass
4 - bass synthesizer (rhythmic bass)
5 - Organ
6 - Minimax bass
7 - M400 choir
8 - M400 strings
9 - Minimax lead
11 - Electric piano
15 - Distorted organ
17, 18 - Stereo drum track
19 - Additional vocals left
20 - Main vocals
21 - Additional vocals right
Alright thanks a lot, that set up is awesome! I think I understand what I want to do now. I'm on the same page as you wanting to use all tape. I do have one final question though. So lets say I have it all recorded, all mixed and mastered, and its on the tape. How do I proceed from there? Such as getting it onto my Computer so I can then burn it to CD?
jpmorris
Tape Wolf
It's not generally recommended to do that. You'd end up sacrificing two tracks from the multitrack to record the stereo mix to, and unless it's a very high-end machine the quality won't be as good as you'd get with a dedicated stereo master recorder.
If it helps, I can go over the various combinations of tape width and track format.
The industry standard for a stereo master was 1/4" half-track at 15 inches/second. The song would be mixed to stereo in this format, and then the vinyl record would be cut from a tape in that format. When CD came along the master disk would be digitized from the 1/4" 15ips stereo master. There was also a 1/2" stereo format in the late 1980s but it didn't gain as much traction.
For multitrack it gets very complicated because there were a lot of standards and it kept evolving as technology improved and new demands came along. Here's a quick history lesson and comparison.
In the early-to-mid 1960s studios tended to record to 4-track on 1/2" tape, which means each track has the same width and sound quality as one channel of the 1/4" stereo master. In effect, they took the stereo tape standard and doubled the width of the tape.
When 8-track appeared they doubled the tape width again so it was 1" 8-track. At the end of the 1960s they doubled it yet again to get 2" 16-track, which conveniently enough used the same width of tape as video machines did at the time (2" quadruplex). Indeed, Ampex' first 16-track machines were actually based on a video recorder chassis.
Anyway, the artists and engineers were still crying out for more and more tracks, but there were a lot of practical difficulties going beyond 2" tape. 3" was tried but never made it into production. So, when 24-track came out around 1972, it was still 2" wide but the tracks and guard bands were squished down a bit to make it all fit. This reduced the quality per-track but by and large it didn't make much difference because there were up to 24 tracks playing and the difference would get lost in the crowd.
Where quality really was important they'd either go back to 2" 16-track, or use noise reduction.
That covers the professional studio-grade formats. The semi-pro formats are where it gets complicated.
In the late 1970s there was a lot of demand for cheaper machines for small or home studios. It's worth bearing in mind that a 24-track recorder with noise reduction cost about as much as a car, if not a house. That led to TEAC/TASCAM and a couple of others developing an 8-track format on 1/2" tape. Each track was now the same width as consumer reel-to-reel, with a corresponding drop in quality, but the machine was semi-affordable and very cheap to run since it didn't need 1-inch tape.
Machines recording in this format include the TEAC 80-8, TASCAM 38, 48, 58 and TSR-8, Otari 5050-8, Studer C278 and the bizarre ITAM 806 which was made from pieces of Revox A77. 'Sweet Dreams' by Eurythmics was recorded on a TASCAM 38, incidentally.
The TASCAM TSR-8 was one of TASCAM's last reel-to-reels and has built-in DBX noise reduction, but the quality was still decent enough that it would work without any noise reduction.
Inevitably there was also demand for budget 16-track machines. TASCAM put out the 8516, MS-16 and ATR60-16 which recorded on 1" tape. As happened with the studio machines, they took the 8-track standard and doubled the size so they had the same width per track. The Otari MX70 also has a 1" 16-track version, and ITAM also made a 1610 machine (not from Revox bits) which also used this format. Again, this could be used without noise reduction but the manufacturers tended to offer it as an option. IIRC the ATR60 has DBX built-in.
In the early 1980s, Fostex also got into the game, but they wanted to compete on price and running costs, so they halved the tape width. This meant 1/4" 8-track, which has the same width per track as a cassette, and at this point you have to have noise reduction or the results will be a bit rough-sounding. Machines in this format include the Fostex A8, M80, R8 and E8, plus also the TASCAM 388. Interestingly, TASCAM decided to try and one-up Fostex and made a number of machines which recorded 8 tracks onto a normal 1/8" cassette, such as the 238, 488 and 688. Noise reduction was absolutely mandatory for that format.
Fostex also went after the 16-track market and produced the B16, E16, G16 and G16S, which all recorded on 1/2" tape. These were extremely popular and were bought in the thousands for project studios. I believe Enya used an E16, and Bill Nelson (ex Bebop Deluxe) used his B16 until about 2000. Again, the narrow track format needs noise reduction to work properly - the machines came with Dolby C built-in, except for the G16S, which had Dolby S. (They are very failure prone, the Dolby C version is more likely to work these days).
TASCAM produced the MSR-16 (not to be confused with the MS-16) which used the same track format, but DBX noise reduction. I have a feeling there was also a Dolby S version of that too, though again note that the Dolby S chips die easily and cannot be replaced.
The final semi-pro format before digital took over was 1" 24-track, produced from about 1988-1995. TASCAM and Fostex made these machines, the G24 (and G24S?) from Fostex, and the MSR-24 (and MSR-24S) from TASCAM. The stock G24 used Dolby C noise reduction, the MSR-24 used DBX. The S-versions again used Dolby S and again, the S-chips have a high mortality rate.
When I got my MSR-24, I found that the previous owner had recorded their tapes with the noise reduction disabled. It sounded okay as a mix, but decidedly off if you listened to one of the tracks in isolation. I use DBX and have no complaints, but I'm not sure I'd want to mix to it.
jpmorris
Tape Wolf
At its simplest, you'd start a recording package like Audacity on the computer, connect the stereo deck up to the soundcard's line in, and play back the stereo mix into the computer. That's actually one of the reasons I've stuck with producing a stereo master and digitizing that - I've had a tendency for the computer to skip while recording. If I was mixing the album live into the computer, the mix would be ruined. If I've got a good mix on tape, and digitizing it goes wrong, I just have to rewind the tape and play it back again.
Ideally you'll want to make sure you have a decent audio interface on the computer. The on-board sound on a laptop or desktop tends to have a lot of interference, and more recently some of them have no line-in at all, just a microphone input which won't do the job.
I can't really make a suggestion for that, I'm afraid - I have used an Edirol UA5 for most of my tape transfers, but recently I splashed out on a TASCAM DA3000, which can record direct to SD or CF card without the computer being involved at all. They're not cheap, though.
Okay, thank you so much for all the help! But I'm still slightly confused because in your video aren't you using the Tascam MSR-24 which is 1 inch then recording it onto the Studer A807 which is 1/4 inch? Basically I was looking at getting the Tascam MS-16 for tracking, and the Otari MTR-10 for mastering. Would this work? If not is there a 1 inch, 15ips stereo recorder that you would recommend? Keep in mind my songs will rarely have more than 10-12 tracks so sacrificing 2 of them would be no issue. Thanks a lot.
jpmorris
Tape Wolf
Yes. The MSR-24 has all the basic tracks, but unless you've joined two channels together like I did with the drums, they are all mono. The mixing desk lets you decide which channel goes on the left, which goes on the right and how far in either direction, and lets you do things like fading instruments in and out or adjusting the amount of reverb they have. The mixing desk typically has a stereo output, so if you want to record it, it has to go somewhere. Traditionally this was a 1/4" stereo recorder, or maybe a DAT machine in the 1990s.
The other thing is that the 1/4" recorder will use about 1/8" for the left track and 1/8" for the right track. (I think it's 2.75mm plus a gap between them). Recording a stereo pair on the MSR-24 would give them about a 24th of an inch each, which is not going to sound as good, even with noise reduction. I haven't tried a side-by-side comparison but a common complaint about narrow-track is that things sound a little pinched, in particular the stereo separation will get a bit funny because there will be cross-talk between them.
An MS16 and MTR10 would be a nice combination, yes, though I don't have experience with either deck personally. I believe the MTR-10 can be configured to record to 1/2" tape if you really, really must have something wider than 1/4" to mix to, but honestly, 1/4" is what was used for all the classic albums of the 60s and 70s, so it should be good enough.
You'll need to pick a mixing desk as well, with at least 16 channels, and there's also the question of how you're going to plug the instruments into the multitrack. What I do personally is I have two mixing desks, a small one which goes into the multitrack, which all the synthesizers, the bass and the microphone are plugged into, and the 24-channel desk which I use for mixing the multitrack down to stereo.
Doing it this way means that you can apply effects to the instrument as it's recorded, which is useful. Stereo effects such as reverb are better applied during mixdown, though. The interesting part then is how you connect the instrument mixer to the multitrack. A patchbay is probably the best plan.
There are dedicated recording mixers where you plug both the input and output of the multitrack into the same mixing desk and you can switch whether it's recording or playing back. However, I've never used one of those myself.
It would be nice if someone else chipped into this since different people have different needs and different ways of working. If you want a second opinion it might be an idea to create another thread with a different title - I suspect most people are ignoring this one because it looks like you're asking for help with a Technics deck and I don't think many folks have them on this board.
Hope that helps.
I have done all of my recordings recently with an MS-16 and a 1/4" Otari MTR-10. Agreed with everything jpmorris had to say - there isn't really a reason you need a 1/2" stereo deck, and if you find one, it's going to be really expensive (only really high end decks like Studers and Ampex ATRs are usually found in this format.)
The MTR-10 is the size of a washing machine and weighs about 200lbs. You might consider an MX-5050 2-track if that is a problem.
Also when buying an MS-16 - make SURE that nobody's lost any of the parts that make up the system! There is the tape transport itself, a record/repro amp unit (with the 16 vu meters on the front), and crucially a panel with all of the switches that arm tracks for recording and control the sync/repro outputs. There isn't any way you can replace any of this stuff if it's missing. dbx noise reduction (two separate 8 channel units) was not always included. If the NR unit or a jumper plug are not plugged into the NR sockets on the back, the machine will not pass any audio.
Lastly, having any tape deck in 2015 is something like having a vintage car... (that doesn't rust out or get crashed into)
There WILL be mechanical/electronic problems occasionally but they really aren't anything to be afraid of.
Plenty of people on this forum that fix this stuff (I am one of them)
The MTR-10 is the size of a washing machine and weighs about 200lbs. You might consider an MX-5050 2-track if that is a problem.
Also when buying an MS-16 - make SURE that nobody's lost any of the parts that make up the system! There is the tape transport itself, a record/repro amp unit (with the 16 vu meters on the front), and crucially a panel with all of the switches that arm tracks for recording and control the sync/repro outputs. There isn't any way you can replace any of this stuff if it's missing. dbx noise reduction (two separate 8 channel units) was not always included. If the NR unit or a jumper plug are not plugged into the NR sockets on the back, the machine will not pass any audio.
Lastly, having any tape deck in 2015 is something like having a vintage car... (that doesn't rust out or get crashed into)
There WILL be mechanical/electronic problems occasionally but they really aren't anything to be afraid of.
Plenty of people on this forum that fix this stuff (I am one of them)