4 track cassette only good for demos, while real records are made on 2" Studer?

[Beck]

"YeshuasFan" How did I miss that? Yeshua Hamashia!

I didn't know about Keaggy's recording equipment... he would have had the 144 about the same time I did, which was about when I started listening to contemporry Christian artists, including Keaggy.

 

[smart blonde]

I have an average collection of old commercial cassette recordings and I have to admit, they sure have that “pro” sound, coming from that little stereo 4-track cassette format. I suppose they could have made those cassettes 2” thick with 24 tracks, but then the Walkmans would have been sort of bulky.

 

[Igor Alexander]

What are your thoughts?

Well, I think we all know what the technical limitations of the "skinny stuff," particularly the cassette multitrackers, are. C'mon, who are we kidding? There's more noise, crosstalk, alignment issues, drop-outs, distortion, and so on for every factor that can influence the quality of a recording. The noise reduction (if you use it) tends to muffle the recordings, and these machines were designed and calibrated to use noise reduction. I've owned a couple of cassette 4-tracks over the years and all else being the same, there's simply no comparison to the wider tape formats (and, ahem, digital).

All that being said, I have made recordings on cassette 4-tracks which when I listened to them years later, surprised me, as they really weren't bad, especially the ones that were mixed down to a proper recorder (e.g. DAT, open reel, or in a pinch, a VCR or one of the better stereo cassette decks). I'm sure a fair number of the punk rock albums I grew up on (The Misfits immediately come to mind) were recorded on cassette 4-tracks, and those records just wouldn't sound right if they had been done on a 2-inch 16 track.

OTOH, I was recently listening to an album by The Undead (a band featuring members of The Misfits), and I was thinking to myself that some of the material was good but that the recording wasn't doing it justice. It sounded like it had been recorded on a cassette 4-track with noise reduction turned on.

Even though the quality of my recordings improved immeasurably when I switched to digital, I do miss the simplicity, convenience, and reliability of the old cassette portastudios. I sometimes think that what I gained in sound quality and flexibility by moving to a DAW I may have lost in productivity.

Bottom line is, you do the best that you can with the tools you have on hand. A good song and performance is going to shine through no matter what you use to record it.

 

[Igor Alexander]

...and that's the problem 'cause the only word you hear about those machines, is that of recordists who really haven't tapped the full possibilities of such units, and they're plentiful, as such their recording technique and talent being mediocre at best. You just don't hear spectacular productions from those people and those that do manage something special, you just don't hear about period. Whereas, you don't really hear any mediocre productions from those who have the 500lb studers, otaris, ampexes etc....

Why would a skilled producer or engineer use a portastudio if he had the choice? For the challenge? These machines were designed with the unskilled home user in mind, not for professional use. Yes, they have been pushed into service to record albums before, but more for reasons of budget than on technical merit. I can't think of any reason for a professional to use one of these machines except as a musical scratchpad. Would you pay a professional upwards of $40 an hour plus expenses to record you on a Tascam portastudio? I sure as hell wouldn't!

 

[Igor Alexander]

The biggest limitation of these machines is their low track count (especially four track portastudios). In a professional situation. You need to be able to accomodate a client's needs, whatever they may be. 4 or 8 tracks just doesn't cut it, even if sonically, those four tracks sound good.

also I think there are factors other than fidelity. Take the Tascam I just traded in for the Otari for example. It was far more difficult to bias, calibrate, align and service the Tascam. You had to take the thing apart. The Otari could be set up quickly and easily, controls were easily accessible fom the back, it has a built in o-scope, etc... In a professional environment, where time is money and you charge clients by the hour, you can't take an hour to take apart your deck, you need to get it set up within minutes.

Sometimes the difference between "pro" and "semi-pro" is just extra features, not sound.

That's a good point. As you go up the ladder, the easier the equipment is to maintain. One of the old Ampex machines will probably still be serviceable 10 or 20 or maybe even 50 years from now. I doubt we'll be able to say the same thing about the Tascam or the Fostex machines. (Tape availability will be a different matter, though.)

As I read through the responses in this thread, I get the feeling some people are trying to convince themselves that the Pinto or the Volkswagen they're driving is actually a Ferrari or a Rolls Royce.

All I can say to these people is: pick up a used Nagra recorder sometime, get it serviced if need be, and give it a go. Plug in an SM57. Use the cheapest red-oxide tape you can find. The experience will utterly disillusion you. Only people who have never touched quality gear before could fool themselves into believing that the cheap stuff is just as good.

 

[cjacek]

As I read through the responses in this thread, I get the feeling some people are trying to convince themselves that the Pinto or the Volkswagen they're driving is actually a Ferrari or a Rolls Royce.

You may be right but on the flip side, some others may try to justify their 2" 24 track, 500lb machines (or by going digital) and they do what they have to, to stay "sane" and this, on occasion, includes trashing the small formats of the world. I'm not saying that you're doing that, I'm just making a point, just as you have done.

Just to be fair, I don't think it was ever mentioned (in this thread) that there were no viable reasons to go with a truly "PRO" machine. Man, there are a variety of reasons to opt for one of them 500lb monsters (as there are reasons not to) but the crux of the message was how much do you really need to get a "pro" sound. And the answer is not much, as evidenced by truly superb productions made on lesser format gear.

Bottom line, we all can be disillusioned for different reasons... Is anyone objective anymore? Can anyone answer a question, motive free? I don't think so...

 

[Dr ZEE]

we all can be disillusioned for different reasons...

...or for no reason at all.
Like, for no reason what so ever, we can 'realize' that the only way to ACTUALLY drive a Ferrari or a Rolls Royce is NOT to get inside that car to inquire a feeling , but rather - to get behind it and push it from the rear.

Speaking of advice. Here is an advice for an adviser:
To get a clear feeling about what cars are originally were made for - try to ACTUALLY drive one. Start at point "A". On how to ACTUALLY drive a car - see above. After that, get inside your shiny Royce, Mers or what not, start it up, push the pedal, keep your hands on the "ring" and experience the sensation of being driven. Arrive to point "B". Get out your shiny Royce, Mers or what not. Check the maps. Confirm the fact of being relocated from point "A" to point "B". Then take a look at the highway employed by bunch of muddy Pintos and VWs and what not passing by and smile, and say: "Heh heh heh, you, folks, only think that you are going somewhere. Only people who have never touched quality "rings" before could fool themselves into believing that the cheap stuff is just as good."

Is anyone objective anymore?

Some are. They can drive.
Some are not. They can be driven.

Can anyone answer a question, motive free?
I don't think so...

I don't think so either.
***********
speaking of motives, :

merry christmas

 

[Igor Alexander]

You may be right but on the flip side, some others may try to justify their 2" 24 track, 500lb machines

From what I've seen, a lot of the guys buying the 500 lb machines aren't really professionals, but rather, hobbyists and collectors. They'll probably spend more money buying this stuff than they will ever earn off it. Most professionals have gone digital.

BTW, 2" 24 track is considered a narrow format, just like the Scully 12 track another poster mentioned.

(or by going digital)

These days, I can put together a full-fledged DAW for less money than it would have cost me to buy an 8-track cassette portastudio 10 years ago, and the media costs for a DAW are much lower (about 20 cents for a blank DVD, and $140 for a 500 gig hard drive, versus $4 for a Type II cassette).

I find it strange that so many low-end analog guys give digital such short shrift, since it can produce results that are of comparable quality to the old professional tape decks, but at a lower price point than all of this semi-pro analog gear you're talking about. In an age where you can buy a brand-new 20 channel soundcard, plug it into an $800 PC, add a $300 program, and record a practically unlimited number of tracks for literally pennies, why are we even having this discussion? If someone's main concern is sound quality, why would he settle for something that's "good enough," like a Teac 4-track, when for not much more money, he can build a system that's in the same league as what the pros are using (a DAW)? It doesn't make any sense to me. The only reason you can still buy cassette 4-tracks new is because they fill a useful niche, and that niche is, for musicians/songwriters who need an inexpensive scratch pad and want to keep it simple.

Just to be fair, I don't think it was ever mentioned (in this thread) that there were no viable reasons to go with a truly "PRO" machine.

If I had the space and could afford the tape and the maintenance costs, hell, I wouldn't mind having one of those old beasties in my home! I'm sure they sound wonderful!

Man, there are a variety of reasons to opt for one of them 500lb monsters (as there are reasons not to) but the crux of the message was how much do you really need to get a "pro" sound. And the answer is not much, as evidenced by truly superb productions made on lesser format gear.

Bottom line, we all can be disillusioned for different reasons... Is anyone objective anymore? Can anyone answer a question, motive free? I don't think so...

Well, I made the same point as you; that good recordings can be achieved on modest gear. But that is not the same as saying that there is no difference between low-end and high-end gear, which is what some of the posters in this thread seem to be suggesting.

There's nothing wrong with driving a Pinto, just as long as you don't go around claiming that it's a Ferrari.

 

[Igor Alexander]

Speaking of advice. Here is an advice for an adviser:
To get a clear feeling about what cars are originally were made for - try to ACTUALLY drive one. Start at point "A". On how to ACTUALLY drive a car - see above. After that, get inside your shiny Royce, Mers or what not, start it up, push the pedal, keep your hands on the "ring" and experience the sensation of being driven. Arrive to point "B". Get out your shiny Royce, Mers or what not. Check the maps. Confirm the fact of being relocated from point "A" to point "B". Then take a look at the highway employed by bunch of muddy Pintos and VWs and what not passing by and smile, and say: "Heh heh heh, you, folks, only think that you are going somewhere. Only people who have never touched quality "rings" before could fool themselves into believing that the cheap stuff is just as good."

Uhm, was this directed at me? If so, can I have a toke of whatever it is you're smoking?

 

[Dr ZEE]

Uhm, was this directed at me? If so, can I have a toke of whatever it is you're smoking?

Nop, Igor, it was not, and thus you can't have a toke.
"This" was directed toward the subject of matter or this thread.

/respects

 

[Dr ZEE]

There's nothing wrong with driving a Pinto, just as long as you don't go around claiming that it's a Ferrari.

Ageed.
Also, There's nothing wrong with driving a Ferrari as long as you don't go around claiming that Pinto can't drive you from point "A" to point "B".

 

[Bobby Darko]

I'm not sure I get this discussion. I get the feeling it's going back to the digi - pro / amateur analog discussion, while the question was: can you make a record on cassette. The answer off course is: Yes

The second question is: can you make a commercial record on cassette: the answer again is yes, as I discovered myself (ok, it was a suprise for me too).

The final question, could you make a commercial record that would sell millions of copies (like for instance Nebraska did)? THe answer is no I'm afraid. NOt only because the majority of the people want bubblegum music that is compressed and auto tuned to shit, but also because records just don't sell anymore...

OK, back to my studio, have to erase some CASSETTES for the next client...

Please continue this thread!!

www.myspace.com/casacassette

 

[Dr ZEE]

OK, back to my studio, have to erase some CASSETTES for the next client...

heh heh , that's a good one
Spending unpaid time in studio for a client is Bad business. Erase them on-the-fly during recording session.
Did I just say "recording session" ?. I gess I did.

Please continue this thread!!

No problema. It's easy, you see. The conversation is virtual, just as virtual as business, clients, sessions and everything else what's being projected into the "soup". So, no problem. The "party" never stops here.

The final question, could you make a commercial record that would sell millions of copies ...?[/url]

One can not answer the question that can't be answered. To make the question answerable, replace one letter: "could you make a commercial record that could sell millions of copies ...?"
"Could Sell" and "Would Sell" can be only connected by a crystal-ball operator (or similar "professional"). In reality the connection only can be crafted and thus become 'evident' for an unsophisticated viewer after the fact, and it is the connection Between "Could Sell" and "Sold". There's something else, that has no relationship neither with production of the record neither with what the record is like, The "something" that is solely and independently resposible for the act of transformation from "could sell" to "sold".
Selling is an "art" on its own.
*******
P.S.
The viewer does not care: "It's sold!, - it must be good!."

/respects

 

[FALKEN]

One can not answer the question that can't be answered. To make the question answerable, replace one letter: "could you make a commercial record that could sell millions of copies ...?"
"Could Sell" and "Would Sell" can be only connected by a crystal-ball operator (or similar "professional").

"could sell" is too vague. I could make a cd in pro tools of myself vomiting for 45 minutes and it "could sell". but would it? I think it could be connected by you or me, with some degree of relative accuracy, if we had the data to do some amount of research, given that it had a fair shot at being sold.

 

[Dr ZEE]

NOTE: By splicing your post into pieces I do not mean to accomplish anything else but to respond in details.

"could sell" is too vague.

yes it is.

I could make a cd in pro tools of myself vomiting for 45 minutes and it "could sell". but would it?

Would it sell or not is all up to a seller. It also has been done and will be done.

...some degree of relative accuracy...

heh heh I love this phrase. This can go to a pocket-book of universally useful power-lines

...research....

YES! Great sellers are masters of research. A great seller can tell you for sure whether or not he/she can sell "this" for you, he/she may put it as: "This" will sell well" or "This will not sell". That does not mean, however, that some other seller will agree with the verdict. Different "artists" - different visions, different favorite streets and different hangouts. So it depends.

... given that it had a fair shot at being sold.

No such thing. As I see it, "fair shot" is a fictional figure in the "play". Market is anything you can think of but fair. Add to this the fact that "you are trying to sell" something that does not have any measurable value (product of art & entertainment) and you get no "gravity" of any kind at all.


*********
btw, I totally forgot

... "...a lot of people are on the quest for their "perfect sound", and the smaller machines aren't doing it for them."

Yes!
I would just add to this, that the bigger machines aren't doing it for them either.
And then, maybe!, and it's only MAYBE!, some day the quest for the "perfect one" will get to its ultimate dead end and then, maybe, the quest for "your own one" will emerge, and then the never satisfied "need" for a "better" (higher range, that is ) machine will be overwritten by "master the right one".

/respects

 

[rayc]

In this world of uber compression & the availability of post production noise reduction & assuming the tape machine is well maintained who could tell a beautifully sparse vocal, guitar, bass & harmony vocal done on 4 track & mastered properly from a beautifully sparse vocal, guitar, bass & harmony vocal done in a DAW or on some megalopoloustic machine of our dreams?
I cheat - I ofetn record to 4 track cassette & then pull these into my computer for playful purposes.
Could it sell? Of course - MP3s sell all over the place & the quality/noise factors related exceed those of cassettes to my ear & mind.

 

[Beck]

I could make a cd in pro tools of myself vomiting for 45 minutes and it "could sell". but would it?

Based on recent music trends I think you're on to something there... the next big thing. Instead of music that makes you vomit (which we have a lot of now); music that is vomit, which kinda cuts out the middle man, so to speak. Will it be out in time for Christmas? I like experimental stuff…

 

[Beck]

...but also because records just don't sell anymore...

Sad but true, and the reason why these discussions are academic… for now at least. That could change at some point in the future… maybe a music revolution yet to come and surprise everyone.

 

[FALKEN]

ok let me put it this way.

knowing what I know, and after putting in all the effort to build my own studio that is my own sound, if I were to go to a "pro studio" today, I would require it to have a 2" 16-track, 1/2" mixdown, a vintage console, all of the vintage compressors, a bad ass room for tracking in, and amenities. Or else I'd be wasting my time, because anything less I can do at home.

though the guy with the casette 8-track studio all of a sudden has me feeling a bit envious. that is a sweet looking machine.

 

[FALKEN]

see its a catch-22. if you can do it at home then why go to a pro-studio for it? pro-gear CAN'T be home studio gear, because then everyone and their mom would have a "PRO" studio...er...wait...everyone and their mom all of a sudden DOES have one...and wait..music sucks! you can't win and you can't lose on this one.