Geezer Guitar Player and Newbie Recordist in The Desert

D

DesertRatt

Member
Hello All,

I'm an old geezer guitar player and am enjoying recording songs. I dipped into this a year ago briefly, then had to get on with other projects, but now I have the time to get back to it.

As an old coot I love analog audio, and I enjoy using the older cassette-based machines. I began by purchasing a Fostex X-34 last year. I added an AT 2020 condenser and a Shure SM58. I most of the time use the condenser on the guitar and the SM58 on my vocals. I often overdub the vocals and then mix down.

After getting the Fostex, I thought I would try the digital boxes and bought a Tascam DP-008EX. I really do not like much about it at all. I find it highly annoying to use, and I really never got into the paradigm of using software to emulate physical and mechanical functions. (I don't even like using cell phones.)

Recently, I purchased a Tascam 424 MkII to replace the cheap-o Fostex. It's on the way to me now. So, I figured I would get involved with a recording community as a way to learn how to better use this gear!

So, thanks for the opportunity to be here~
 
Hi Ratt, if you come from the old days of tape recording IMHO you really should try an audio interface with a
'Digital Audio Workstation' as the software is called. Yes, it is a Compoooter but the principle of most DAWs is based on a linear tape machine and they all include a 'mixer' which will be a bit familiar to you.

Audacity is a free download forever. Reaper is a much better DAW for song building and is free till the guilt kicks in but then only $60.

So...Cost nothing but time to try?


Dave.
 
Hi Dave!

Thanks for the comments. I do have Audacity, and I use it a little for simple things, but I really am not a fan of the "digital paradigm" for things that started out analog. Although I've been directly involved in computers since 1968 when I was a programmer, I am not a fan of sitting at a screen and mousing through menus.

I enjoy the process as much as the outcome, and I really like the analog world!

Thanks again, Dave!
 
Hiya Ratt {or should I call you Des ?},
It's great that you want to do your own recordings. Other than guitar and vocals, do you plan on having any other elements in your songs ?
Up until 18 months ago, I used to have an 8 track version of your Tascam 424, the 488 {the mk 1}, and I got to tell you that for the first 13 years I had it, I loved it and the majority of what I know about recording, I learned on it. Although I've been on a digital 12 track {in the main} since 2009, most of my workflow and habits stemmed from my 488 days. While I'd never go back to cassette, I'd never knock it either. I loved it and I try never to talk people out of it {I don't always succeed !} that want to record on them still.
Try to buy up as many type 2 {ie chrome} cassettes as you can find. If they've been well looked after, it doesn't even matter if some of them have been used.
 
Hi Mr. Grimm!
Sure, "Ratt" is good enough! Thanks for the comments. One of my specialties in life seems to be "resisting technological paradigm shifts." Here's an excellent little, precious example why I'm not keen on "computerized" recorders: When I use my Tascam DP-008 with my condenser mic, there's a little tiny button to push on the top of the DP008 that says "Phantom" - and THEN you must go to a little orange screen and locate the button for "ON" or "OFF." e.g. you must push a button so that you can select another button! That's just so dumb it defies analysis! But that's the entire world of "trying to digitize what isn't digital."

So, I just get more fun out of the old school analog world. I was still playing LPs on turntables until 2 years ago. I still used 120 Film cameras like Hassleblad until I got out of photography last year. Developed my own film, too. For me, software is boring, tedious and flat as an experience. Ironically, I began my career in 1967 as a mainframe programmer.

I've been chasing down Type II cassettes. Not terribly hard to find yet.
Cheers!
Ratt
Oh yeah, I love old rat rods too!
 
I don't think I could ever go back to using tape, but I do still like using the "all in one" recorders. I've got an old Yamaha AW1600 and the Zoom R24. The Yamaha is probably more like using one of the cassette recorders without the PITA of using real cassettes. Yeah, you have to navigate some menus, but its logical in layout and you don't have to worry about bouncing tracks around to make space. There are real forward, back, play and record buttons. Tap one button and you've got bouncing LED meters. And unlike tape, hitting the back button is instantaneous, no 3 minutes waiting for the tape to rewind. Or you can FF/RW like a tape machines.

I tend to do tracking on these units a whole song's track at a time, whereas a DAW program makes me think more in pieces that are assembled. Punch I/O seems easier on the computer. Luckily its not an either/or situation. I can have my cake and eat it too!

FWIW, I prefer the digital sound over cassettes. I don't usually hear the analog "warmth", I just hear the analog hiss! Even with the NR, it still seemed to be noisy with the multiple generations.
 
Hi Rich,
Well, as a geezer, my hearing goes out to about 12Khz, then poops out. So, "hiss" isn't even an issue. It wasn't even an issue for me in 1969 with R2R before Dolby. BUT, we'll see how it all turns out once I get the right tape, and some practice with the new machine, which incidentally, I just unpacked this afternoon! It's my first 424 and compared to the little Fostex X-34 (which was fun), it's like a TANK. I'm very impressed with the physicality of it, and the electronic controlled transport runs beautifully. I'm retired, I can afford waiting for the tape to rewind

As to time----In '98 or '99 digital cameras were all the rage and people would say, "You get to see the picture INSTANTLY! No waiting for film developing!" And, eventually, along with my fine high-end film cameras, I bought some digital cameras. But, the "see it instantly" wasn't a boon for me at all. I discovered that I actually enjoyed waiting for the film to be developed, whether I was doing it myself (B&W) or sent it out to a lab (color). The waiting was an opportunity to savor the experience of taking the photograph, thinking about what I might have done better, or how I might improve on it next time. It turned out that I liked that delay between the taking and the seeing of the photograph. So, the digital cameras got used for inconsequential party snapshots, or Ebay postings, and "film + time" was used for my art photography.

We all create in different ways for different benefits and reasons. It's not hard for me to see why people like modern digital everything, but it just isn't my personality! Thanks for the comments, Rich!
Play on!
 
TWELVE thousand bicycles? You lucky b*** Ratt! I cut off at 2kHz and then go off a cliff. Top string of the violin is a mystery to me as it the last octave of the piano.

As I don't record anything for anyone this does not matter overmuch and I check noise levels visually for test purposes.

Of course, noise is only one drawback to tape. The other which in fact bothered the classical music industry far more is distortion. Peaking to 2 or 3% THD might be tolerable for rock and pop but it makes piano and especially choral work tough to listen to. Indeed one of the first uses of Dolby A was not to reduce noise to the greatest extent possible, about 10dB but to keep peak levels and thus THD below 1%.

The classical world was one of the very first adopters of digital recording.

But! So long as YOU are happy chap! Long may you continue with your musical fun.

Dave.
 
Thanks Dave!

I used to design and build valve amplifiers (notice my British terminology for "tubes"!). We generally considered 1% THD quite acceptable if it was mostly 2nd order. So, my ears are already tuned to that sound.

Are you recording your own piano playing? Or? I know pianos are one of the toughest instruments to "get right" on recordings. Fortunately, for my limited talents, I only have to deal with my voice and guitar playing!

I'm always paying attention to where folks are from -- "Northampton" looks like a very interesting and historical town!
Cheers!
Ratt
 
DesertRatt said:
Thanks Dave!

I used to design and build valve amplifiers (notice my British terminology for "tubes"!). We generally considered 1% THD quite acceptable if it was mostly 2nd order. So, my ears are already tuned to that sound.

Are you recording your own piano playing? Or? I know pianos are one of the toughest instruments to "get right" on recordings. Fortunately, for my limited talents, I only have to deal with my voice and guitar playing!

I'm always paying attention to where folks are from -- "Northampton" looks like a very interesting and historical town!
Cheers!
Ratt
Click to expand...

Small world! I started building valve amps in my teens over 60 years ago. I built them for the 'group' i was in. The necessity of having a 'trade' led me to a domestic electronics servicing career but my main interest has always been audio and recording. No, I cannot play piano. Dad could, great fan of Fats Waller and he could manage the first movement of 'The Moonlight' sonata.

In my teens and onward I could manage most of the chords to most of the Beatles songs but finished up playing bass. The group disbanded very quickly as many did...women, kids, mortgages!

My son however has inherited and built on both mine and dad's musical talents and is a terrific guitarist. He can also play keys pretty well and has messed with clarinet and trumpet. He has all the 'dots' and the theory. He actually lives in Le Harve, has a flat there and gets by with a a bit of playing in cafes and bars and some teaching.

My career at 60 took a strange turn when I landed a job in the lab* working on valve amps for Blackstar Amplification.

Oh Yes! True 2nd harmonics are fairly innocuous but tape gives you THIRD and above and that's 'orrible!

Rock on,

*Grand place and title? No so, twas a double garage for six months and I was the equivalent of 'test tube washer" Great blokes though and huge fun.

Dave.
 
Attached is a bit of son. He compiled that in 2006.

Mic was probably a Sontronics STC-2 LDC into an A&H ZED10 driving a 2496 soundcard.

He used to spend hours working on stuff.

Dave.
 

Attachments

  • country final.mp3
    1.9 MB · Views: 40
DesertRatt said:
In '98 or '99 digital cameras were all the rage and people would say, "You get to see the picture INSTANTLY! No waiting for film developing!" And, eventually, along with my fine high-end film cameras, I bought some digital cameras. But, the "see it instantly" wasn't a boon for me at all. I discovered that I actually enjoyed waiting for the film to be developed, whether I was doing it myself (B&W) or sent it out to a lab (color). The waiting was an opportunity to savor the experience of taking the photograph, thinking about what I might have done better, or how I might improve on it next time. It turned out that I liked that delay between the taking and the seeing of the photograph
Click to expand...
Between 1990 and 2005 I used to develop my own B&W photos. I had a camera that used 35mm film and I bought this Russian light meter ~ the instructions were in Russian so I had to work out how to use it without any help ! I bought it and the camera from a drunk outside my workplace that used to have a Friday market.
What I'd do would be to spend the year taking photos and I'd amass some 20 to 30 rolls of film. At some point during the year I'd make contact sheets but that would be all. Then over a period of a week or two, the following year I'd print off the pictures I wanted to keep. Because my bathroom had no window, it was easy to rig up a dark room. I'd spend about 8 hours at a time developing pictures. I'd be in there with about 10 albums on tape and just go through the night with the taps on constantly rinsing and by the morning when I'd finish, I'd usually have about 60 or 70 pictures ready to hang up then I'd crash out for hours ! But when I'd go to take the dried pictures down hours later, I was always pleasantly surprised by the pictures because now they were large and I was awake and could see them in all their glory in a way that a contact sheet doesn't enable. And bear in mind, I hadn't seen them ever before, really.
Prior to that, I used to drop them at a lab and usually had to wait 5 or 6 days, sometimes 2 weeks. But I never ever minded the wait, either with the old colour or my B&Ws. You know the funny thing ? Even now with a digital camera, it might be 3 or 4 months before I transfer the pictures onto the computer ! So there'll be loads of pictures. So digital has made no difference for me in terms of instantaneousness and speed. Same with music. My songs still take ages to get finished !
 
grimtraveller said:
Between 1990 and 2005 I used to develop my own B&W photos. I had a camera that used 35mm film and I bought this Russian light meter ~ the instructions were in Russian so I had to work out how to use it without any help ! I bought it and the camera from a drunk outside my workplace that used to have a Friday market.
What I'd do would be to spend the year taking photos and I'd amass some 20 to 30 rolls of film. At some point during the year I'd make contact sheets but that would be all. Then over a period of a week or two, the following year I'd print off the pictures I wanted to keep. Because my bathroom had no window, it was easy to rig up a dark room. I'd spend about 8 hours at a time developing pictures. I'd be in there with about 10 albums on tape and just go through the night with the taps on constantly rinsing and by the morning when I'd finish, I'd usually have about 60 or 70 pictures ready to hang up then I'd crash out for hours ! But when I'd go to take the dried pictures down hours later, I was always pleasantly surprised by the pictures because now they were large and I was awake and could see them in all their glory in a way that a contact sheet doesn't enable. And bear in mind, I hadn't seen them ever before, really.
Prior to that, I used to drop them at a lab and usually had to wait 5 or 6 days, sometimes 2 weeks. But I never ever minded the wait, either with the old colour or my B&Ws. You know the funny thing ? Even now with a digital camera, it might be 3 or 4 months before I transfer the pictures onto the computer ! So there'll be loads of pictures. So digital has made no difference for me in terms of instantaneousness and speed. Same with music. My songs still take ages to get finished !
Click to expand...

What a great story! I very much miss film developing and darkrooms. If circumstances were a bit different (bigger house, let's say), I'd still be doing it. The whole process is wildly satisfying to me. There is so much subtlety involved.
And yes, making pictures large - say 8 x 10 at least - really changes their effect. I did lots of photography shows, and I was never able to pick from small contacts or small prints. I had to have the full size of the finished work to know if it worked for me. Further yet, I had to see it in a mat so that the edges were properly controlled.

My "obsession" with cassette tape conforms to all those things I liked about film. HA HA -- we are funny beings at heart!
 
Ratt,

I'm with you on the hearing issues. I top out somewhere in the 10-12K range as well, depending on how clogged the sinuses are and how strong the tinnitus is going that day. But I still seem to hear some of the hiss, although its not as prominent as it used to be. I figure if I can hear it, younger ears should REALLY hear it.

Very cool about you designing and building amps. Anything that I might have heard back in the heyday of audio? (I still have my IMF TLS50s and my Rega Planar 2 from the early 80s)

RE: film development, I still have the boxes in the basement with all my chemical bottles from developing E6 slide film. I never had the opportunity to set up a darkroom and do print development. Plus it was a bit of a choice... either I buy stereo/music gear, or photo equipment. A nice Besseler enlarger was quite pricey. So I stuck with my couple of Pentax cameras and the occasional bulk roll of slide film and would head off to the race track or family gathering to snap away. Over the years, I did a lot of technical photos for work. I guess if I had developed an eye for composing pictures of the "real world", I might have gotten into it more deeply.

Anyway, have some fun with that 424. That's what its all about anyway, right?
 
A little update on the journey.

My 424MKII arrived, and on day 1 I discovered all 4 of the input trim pots were shot/shorted/static filled. Totally unusable. So, I immediately disassembled the beast, pulled the circuit boards, de-soldered the pots, found a replacement and ordered them. Wrong parts shipped to me, longer story begins....

So, while sorting out the parts problems, I happened on ANOTHER much nicer unit and bought it immediately. It arrived last night and is looking like the day it was made! Came in the original box and packaging, included the original manual, and even the original sales receipt from the store where it was bought in 1996! Pristine clean. My jaw dropped!

I made a few quick takes with guitar and vocals on my new Maxell XL-II high bias tape, and was really delighted with the results. Very pleasant sound with plenty of highs, and whatever hiss there might be was not evident in my Sennheisers, or on my monitor speakers. Just the experience I was aiming for!

Now, I also have the "parts donor" in the closet waiting for one of the parts houses to deliver the right parts. Having disassembled this completely, I can report that it is extremely well made! The design is elegant, well executed, and the care in assembly was obvious. This sold for $495 in 1996, or $800 in 2020 dollars. Pretty expensive. Well worth a few hours to repair.

Cheers to all!
Record on!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top