Recording to cassette tape question(s)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fruscayerdrix
  • Start date Start date
F

Fruscayerdrix

New member
Hello guys,

I'm new here so this is me breaking the ice ;)

For the past couple of years i've been recording on a Tascam DP-02 (digital) which worked out nicely and i enjoy the simplicity of the machine.
However, i've always loved the sound of older tape recording (especially some old tapes by John Frusciante and Springsteen). I got a nice deal on a Tascam 424 MKIII. I also have some Maxell XLII coming, so i'm pretty much set.

Yet, you all probably know the High Bias type cassettes are pretty hard to come by these days. I'm Dutch and around here they're nowhere to be found.
So i'm wondering; can i, if i have to, record to normal bias tapes like the UR90? I think i can live with some loss of quality ....

And how long will a cassette last me? I've got 5 XLII coming, and i'm wondering what the wear-out time is. In other words: do i have to start looking for new tapes soon ;) ?

Thx, and i really enjoy this forum. Very educational.
 
"And how long will a cassette last me? I've got 5 XLII coming, and i'm wondering what the wear-out time is. In other words: do i have to start looking for new tapes soon ?"

What will drive your search for more tape is that you will want to keep your recordings.

As far as "wear-out" time, dont worry about it. While it could be argued that each time you play a tape back the recorded material is degraded, that degradation is so infinitesimally small, that you would have to play them hundreds if not thousands of times for it to become noticeable. As far as erasing and recording again, dozens to hundreds of times, in a non-pro environment. I have cassettes and even 8-track cartridges from my youth that have to have many hundreds of playback cycles on them. The cassettes hold up much better than the carts. There is a reason for that, but that isnt this discussion.

Im sure others will hop in and offer their opinions.

And, welcome to the Analog Forum!
 
Hello guys,

I'm new here so this is me breaking the ice ;)

Welcome

So i'm wondering; can i, if i have to, record to normal bias tapes like the UR90? I think i can live with some loss of quality ....

And how long will a cassette last me? I've got 5 XLII coming, and i'm wondering what the wear-out time is. In other words: do i have to start looking for new tapes soon ;) ?

I wouldn't use type I cassettes in a recorder that was made specifically for high bias type II cassettes. (That actually makes me cringe when I see a listing/auction for a recorder with a type I tape in it):facepalm:
The transport section in your Tascam 424mkIII is designed for type II tapes and you should not use anything but those tapes. You can get away with it, but you are using a medium that screams for high bias. You can however use them in your mixdown deck but I wouldn't do that either...especially if you already paid a decent amount of cash for your type II tapes that go in your multitracker. You would be "stepping down" in sound quality.
If you do not care that much about what you are recording..you can do what you will.
I personally only use my type II tapes in one pass only and very rarely perform a "bounce" of tracks...but that is just my preference.
You can use a type II several times before you will start to notice a quality loss depending on the type of brand you use.
There are still plenty of listings for "lots" of type II tapes out there..ya just gotta have a keen eye and catch a "sleeper bid".
The UR90's that you speak of will produce a whole lot of low end without any highs.
I know these tapes are still readily and widely available,...but IMO you should save your cash and grab some more type II's.
I started stocking up on type II cassettes when "the digital era" hit and everyone was getting rid of their analog gear/tape at dirt cheap prices...but now the price of these tapes have gone up due to crazy uneducated _bay sellers pricing them that way assuring everyone that they are rare. The same goes for reel tape.
I wish you nothin' but good vibes with your new analog recorder and your future recording endeavors.
Get rid of that DP-02 and buy yourself some high bias tapes with the cash!:D

Here's an old pic of my stash that has grown 4 x's larger than this since I started gathering them. So yeah,..you can definitely still find them at a decent price...ya just gotta put a little work into searchin' for the right lot.
 

Attachments

  • stash #1.webp
    stash #1.webp
    55.8 KB · Views: 183
Thank you for the replies :)

I was just a little worried that, somehow, the type 1 cassette would damage the machine or something like that. I'm going to try both type cassettes and see how big of a difference it makes. I do care about the quality of a recording but i always felt that the song is more important. I have some crappy recording of a live set that is actually among my favorite records ;)

I'm really looking forward to messing around with the 424. And i'll keep an eye open for those type II cassettes.

Thanks again
 
Fruscayerdrix, welcome to the Analog den!

Something else you may want to check out is "Musicians Friend" catalog for Type II cassettes.

Years ago, I bought a few 10 packs of 15 minute tapes. You can easily fit one or two songs per tape....taping on A side only. Cheaper buying bulk.

Go with shorter tape lengths....the tapes are a tiny bit thicker, and will last years longer than 90s.

A shorter tape length, at the highest speed, will give you all the Highs and Lows that your machine, and your ears; can handle.
;)

Hope this helps!


Don't you just love that 424?:cool:
 
Fruscayerdrix, welcome to the Analog den!

Something else you may want to check out is "Musicians Friend" catalog for Type II cassettes.

Years ago, I bought a few 10 packs of 15 minute tapes. You can easily fit one or two songs per tape....taping on A side only. Cheaper buying bulk.

Go with shorter tape lengths....the tapes are a tiny bit thicker, and will last years longer than 90s.

A shorter tape length, at the highest speed, will give you all the Highs and Lows that your machine, and your ears; can handle.
;)

Hope this helps!


Don't you just love that 424?:cool:

I'll check that out and thx for the advice.
I'm getting the 424 tomorrow, but i think we might just become best friends ;)

The whole analog multitrack thing i new to me, since i was born in 1990. I did record radioshows and songs on tape when i was a kid, but i think that's worlds apart from multitrack recording.

I've read the manual like a hundred time already so tomorrow i'll put my knowledge to the test. Thank god i found this forum; there's a lot of expertise here i think.
 
Hello,...

Type I (ferric) tapes will definitely not show the 424mkIII in it's best high fidelity.

I believe Type I tapes are slightly more abrasive than Type II tapes, which is a concern for the longevity of the heads.

I think the issue you might run into is that many eBay sellers and US tape suppliers will not ship internationally, but it can't hurt to ask.

Tape is heavy, so shipping cost might be a significant factor.

Remember that the 424mkIII's mixer section can also be used as a "front end" to the DP02. This will boost general utility of the DP and will likely also boost the resulting fidelity you get on the DP02. It will enable you to "buss" (group) several input/channels together and use EQ on the way into the DP02's recorder section. It will also give you PLENTY of gain on the mic/line inputs, which is sorely lacking on the DP02 series.

:spank::eek:;)
 
Type I (ferric) tapes will definitely not show the 424mkIII in it's best high fidelity.

I believe Type I tapes are slightly more abrasive than Type II tapes, which is a concern for the longevity of the heads.

I think the issue you might run into is that many eBay sellers and US tape suppliers will not ship internationally, but it can't hurt to ask.

Tape is heavy, so shipping cost might be a significant factor.

Remember that the 424mkIII's mixer section can also be used as a "front end" to the DP02. This will boost general utility of the DP and will likely also boost the resulting fidelity you get on the DP02. It will enable you to "buss" (group) several input/channels together and use EQ on the way into the DP02's recorder section. It will also give you PLENTY of gain on the mic/line inputs, which is sorely lacking on the DP02 series.

:spank::eek:;)

Hmm, i might try a few type 1 tapes just to see how they hold up, but i'll definitely keep your post in mind.
THe good news is: i found more than 100 cheap(!) TDK Super D 60 type II tapes right here in Amsterdam. For as far as i've read they don't quite compare to the SA series but they hold up well.

Most US sellers on ebay indeed do not ship to Europe, which is a bummer because somehow a lot of the good stuff seems to come from the States. But with this lot of more than 100 tapes i have way more tape-minutes than actual written-song-minutes so i'm pretty much set for a while ;)

Now i just have to figure out the best way to put my guitars, vocals, backing vocals and synth (and sometimes a drummachine) on tape. The whole bouncing, mixdown process hasn't quite landed yet. Also the functions of tracks 5, 6, 7-8 is described somewhat vague in the manual, but that's probably due to my lack of recording jargon ;)
 
Last edited:
Wow!

I've never heard of TKD Super D's,... ok so I just Google'd it and it seems to be a Europe-only product.
TDK 1997-2001 EUR
I think you lucked out on that purchase! It's a little older tape but not ancient. You are set! ;)

The 424mkIII is limited to 4 tape tracks, only. Channels 5/6/7/8 are mixer channels only with no corresponding tape track.

Channels 5 & 6 are full mixer channels with EQ and AUX Sends, and may be routed to Buss L or Buss R to be recorded to any of the 4 tape tracks. Additionally, Channels 5 & 6 may "borrow" the inputs from either 1/3 or 2/4, respectively. This enables you to use (borrow) the XLR inputs from Channels 1-4, while simultaneously using Channels 1-4 sourced to "Tape" for mixdown. This could be handy if you want to add live input parts at mixdown time using the XLR mic inputs. 5 and 6 also have their own 1/4" input jacks as a baseline.

Channels 7 & 8 are either "mono" when you're using Input 7 alone, or "stereo linked pair" when Inputs 7 & 8 are used simultaneously, however it's only "Level" control and no other knobs & not including a full mixer strip. 7/8 may be routed to the L/R Busses and recorded to tape, "Off", or directly into the Monitor section only (bypassing the buss and tape sections).

All the Channels 1-8 may be mixed and routed to Buss L/R and to tape, for big-setup recordings, such as a live ensemble or drum kit. Channels 1-4 also correspond with the "Direct" recording feature, where Channels 1-4 route directly to it's numerically corresponding tape track. 5/6/7/8 don't have Direct mode capablily at all, but they route to the Busses L/R, if you need them they are there.

For "bouncing",... I won't get long winded here until you've gotten your feet wet on the 424mkIII, BUT you may record your mixes in stereo to the DP02, create a stereo master track on the DP02, and record the master track back into two tracks on the 424mkIII, to add 2 more tracks on tape. In fact, if you're careful with setting levels, you may skip the "Master" track step entrely, and record your bounce to/from the DP02. This preserves your primary tracks in the bouncing process, and is known as an "external" bounce.

The other "bounce" technique is an internal mix of tracks onboard the 424mkIII where tape/pgm tracks subsequently gets taped to an open tape track, but that destroys your original tape tracks in the process. There are descriptions of this process you can find, so I won't detail it exactly, but very carefully you can get acceptable results from this method, that may pack up to 10 "parts" onto 4 "tracks", which includes adding a live part to the bounce during this process.

In general, I think it's accepted that any track-bounce operation will diminish fidelity somewhat, and maybe an external bounce to a lesser extent than an internal bounce, but both methods bear out some experimentation. However, where an exteral bounce shines is that it preserves your primary tracks, and an internal bounce does not. Both methods, if used and with great care, can yield acceptable sound quality. However, the bounced track parts remain locked in balance with each other on each bounced track, which is a consideration.

I may go off topic here, but in general I think if your 4-tracking scopes a lot of bouncing regularly, you're probably better off with an 8-track instead. Fidelity wise, I would always consider an 8-track cassette such as the 488mkII superior to a 4-track cassette using a lot of bouncing. However, you kind of cut your teeth on the 4-track, use bouncing if necessary, and move up when you can afford to upgrade. Nonetheless, you have the DP02 if you want to dump your 4-track stereo mixes to that and add more tracks, it's all good.

The 424mkIII manual is pretty good, in general. I'm not too keen on the step-by-step tutorial, but it suffices for the novice.

Sorry for the long post.
:spank::eek:;)
 
Last edited:
Thank you so much for your reply. Don't apologize for the long post, i appreciate you taking the time to help out a tape-novice. Again, thank you.

I see now an 8-track might have been better, but this 4-track will help me to tone down a little on al the extra stuff; sometime less is more. I tend to go overboard a little since i started out recording in Cubase which basically offers an unlimited number of tracks. I think the 424 will push me to be a bit more economical and practise my songs better; some useful trades i think ;)
The sound i'm kind of looking for is Frusciante's sound on albums like 'From the sounds inside' and 'Niandra LaDes'. I would post the YouTube links, but i can't with less than 10 posts on my account.
If i listen closely to these albums (especially my favorite songs like So Would've i, Go Through these walls, Nature Falls, Mascare, Been Insane and Beginning Again) i realize there's basically not all that much going on. Acoustic guitar, vocal, electric guitar and some synths here and there. You may not like the music but i really dig that lo-fi sound :)

I always thought of the 424 to be an 8 track, but that's my bad ;)

So if you were me and ran into a little track shortage while recording, would you:

a) Mixdown to an extra tape with a tape deck and move on from there
b) Bounce tracks, taking into account the fact that the original recordings are gone. Also, are there any rules regarding bouncing? E.g. don't bounce synths and vocals, or guitar and vocals to the same track?
c) Transport the tracks recorded on the 424 seperately to my DP-02 or Cubase. I don't like Cubase, but if it's the best option i'll learn to embrace it;)
d) Not use more than 4 tracks and meanwhile start looking out for an 8-track

I'll keep my eyes open for an 488 (or similar machine) anyway. Sometimes something wonderful comes along in (the dutch version of) salvation army stores, and on this online second-hand marketplace we have.

p.s. i hope i don't make too many mistakes in my posts. Here in the Netherlands we all grow up with English as a second language (plus our language is anglificating rapidly), but the little nuances sometimes escape me (because of me not being a native and all).
 
Last edited:
Well, I started with an 8-track machine as the baseline, especially because I use MIDI sync a lot and that steals one of your tracks for the control data. However, if I was an actually competent musician running out of tracks on a 4-track setup, I would get a second 4-track machine and bounce back and forth between them as was done by The Beatles etc.

That way you don't lose the original tracks.
 
Well,...

It all depends what you want in the end.

When I first started with a 4-track some time back in the last century, my recordings were jam packed with bouncing at every twist and turn. I would stack complex vocal arrangements, double track parts, and even compile drum tracks with a primitive drum machine that way. I used track bouncing to almost unreasonable degrees, sometimes multiple times in one song. Though I got quite good at it, sometimes the fidelity suffered more than I would have liked. I would also use a technique known as "packing the tracks", where I'd use every trick in the book to get multiple parts live-to-tape in one pass. This includes using hand percussion simultaneously as laying the vocal track, singing backup simultaneously as playing (guitar, drums or bass), triggering stuff off with my toes while playing guitar and everything like that. Seriously! Packing the tracks is tricky but effective, and is much easier if you work with other musicians. I upgraded very shortly to 1/2" 8-track, which is a huge boost in fidelity, and I carried my overzealous bouncing techniques over to that, which produced HUGE sounding arrangements at times. However, although my recordings were good and quite impressive in some cases, listening back to my legacy tapes I eventually decided that 1 strong un-bounced track sounded way better than any double-tracked or bounced track I could devise. And so became my new philosophy to get each track as strong in it's own right as possible in 1 pass, and use bouncing technique only for bouncing minor parts in behind more primary parts, such as bouncing a shaker and tambourine track in behind a vocal track, etc. Since then I've never used the bouncing technique as a prominent feature of my arrangements, and on balance it's better that way. I could even give recorded examples, if you'd like.

As for your direct question, I see no problem with taking your 4-tape tracks, mixing them down to stereo and recording them out to 2 tracks on the DP02, then re-recording them back onto a fresh pair of tape tracks on the 424mkIII, to add 2 more tracks in analog. Alternately, I don't see anything wrong with recording 4 tracks on the 424mkIII and recording them as a stereo mixdown to 2 tracks on the DP02, and adding 6 more overdub tracks in the digital realm on the DP02. However, dumping 4 discrete tape tracks to the DP02 is not feasible because the DP02 only records 2-tracks simultaneously/max. I'm sure that's not news to you. I think the answer all depends on how much you want to stay in the analog realm exclusively. Bouncing 4-discrete tape tracks to Cubase is entirely up to you, but depends on if you have a 4-in/4-out audio interface. If you're looking at this, I'd definitely recommend dumping all 4 tape tracks simultaneously in 1 pass, if possible.

The bounce technique between 2 similar 4-track tape Portastudios jpmorris mentioned is an external bounce technique, but is incumbent on you buying a 2nd 4-track. IMO, if you're committed to analog at this level, it's probably better just make the ugrade and get an analog 8-track, and skip the bouncing altogether.

The external bounce and internal bounce both have advantages and drawbacks, and should be tried in experimentation to see what works best for you. I've done each one to various degrees with relative success.

:spank::eek:;)
 
Last edited:
Nice collection!

Ha Ha! Thanks Dave! Yeah, it has grown since then!
My 688, 644, 488mkII, 464, 424mkII, 238S & PMD740 are hungry and have big appetites!:eek:

I keep feeding them,...but they seem to have a bottomless pit! :D:p;)

I wish I could put them on a type I diet!:facepalm::rolleyes:



PS- That is some good detailed info you laid out for the O.P.!:thumbs up:
 
I started off with a 4 track, the Fostex X15. I remember the first thing I ever did on it with guitars and mandolin and bass. I sent it to my sister. It sounded pretty neat to me at the time. I wish I still had it. It was probably rubbish ! Then I began pursuing my dream of recording the songs I had written over the previous 10 years and there my problems began. 4 tracks simply weren't enough and even getting good with bouncing didn't help. I understand the point about utilising less tracks and having a sparse, concise project with limitations bringing about something good, but that's simple theory in my case......and opinion. Some songs require only 2 tracks. Some 4. Some 7. Some 11. Some 19. Some 30, And so on. It's all dependent on the song and I don't see how anyone can predict for all time how many tracks they may require.
I soon moved up to 8 track {the Tascam 488} and that's what I used for 17 years {and on occasion still do} before I went diji. I used the internal bounce function as a regular and standard part of recording ~ and even now with a 12 track DAW with 238 virtual tracks, I still do.
Alot of people comment on the Beatles usage of 4 track and how masterpieces like "Revolver" and "Sergeant Pepper" were recorded on 4 tracks. But they don't tell the full story. The Beatles would constantly bounce between two machines as jpmorris pointed out {they called bouncing "reduction mixes"}. Even before this, a surprizing number of their songs were edits of two separate performances and the truth is that while they leapt at 4 track recording for "With the Beatles" in 1963 after the limtations of 2 track, very soon even this became limiting for them, hence the slaving together of two 4 tracks for "A day in the life" and them using EMI's new 8 track before it had been tested {which was the protocol at the time }.
But as I stated earlier, track number need is dependent upon song. It depends on the kind of songs one is writing and recording.
 
Thx guys, i understand my options a lot better now. With an extra cassette-deck and my DP02 i'll just have to see what works best for me. How rare are the Tascam 8 tracks?

I got the 424 today. I didn't have the time record anything, instead i played some of the old mixtapes i made when i was a kid. I was quite surprised to find out i had actually recorded some good songs, like Nothing Else Matters, Liquido - Narcotic and more stuff like that. Worst one was probably 'Keep on moving' by Five, but i thought they were pretty cool back then ;)

It was nice to have a cassette in my hand again, i can't remember the last time i even saw one.

The next two days i'll get started. I'll be bothering you some more soon. ;)
 
Thx guys, i understand my options a lot better now. With an extra cassette-deck and my DP02 i'll just have to see what works best for me. How rare are the Tascam 8 tracks?

The cassette ones? Not sure. The 38 and TSR-8 turn up quite frequently on ebay, though. But they are 1/2" reel-to-reel machines so the tape isn't cheap and you'd need a mixer to go with it.

(And yes, although up to Sergeant Pepper was made on 4-track with multiple bounces, The Beatles began recording some of their stuff at Trident or some other studio because they needed 8 tracks)
 
....

The Tascam cassette 8-track Portastudios are quite respectable, with surprisingly good sound quality considering it's microscopic track width.

1/2" reel 8-tracks are a whole other ballgame. You get a big boost in fidelity, as well as in complexity and cost.

I think the 488(std) Portastudio is adequate, but not stellar. (Records 4-tracks/simul/max).

I think the 488mkII Portastudio made some real and vital upgrades to the (std), and is my favorite for simplicity's sake. (Records 4-tracks/simul/max).

I think the 688 Midistudio is the best and most highly capable of the bunch, but it's prohibitive to some people for it's complexity and steep learning curve. However, once you learn the ropes on the 688, there's really none better in cassette 8-track Portastudios. (Records 8-tracks/simul/max).

There's the 238 rackmount cassette 8-track "Syncaset", which is not a Porastudio because it lacks the integrated mixer section, but it has quite worthy sound quality. (Records 8-tracks/simul/max).

If you want Portastudio format 8-track convenience and reel/reel fidelity, you might consider the 1/4" reel 388. This is a tangible step up from cassette, but is not quite as big and costly as 1/2" reel/mixer systems. However, it will be more costly than cassette. Too big to be called "Portastudio", the 388's known as the "Studio 8", but it's relatively portable nonetheless. (Records 8-tracks/simul/max).

:spank::eek:;)
 
Last edited:
...

Sergeant Pepper was made on 4-track with multiple bounces,...
I love this bit of Beatles lore, that's all true in fact, but keep in mind they were working with Studer J37, 1" 4-track machines,... a far cry from the cassette 4-track world. (Sorry 1987's Fostex X-15 advertisement! FAIL!... something only you old timers would remember!)
:spank::eek:;)
 

Attachments

  • the-beatles-fostex-x-15-multitrack-recorder-original-ad.webp
    the-beatles-fostex-x-15-multitrack-recorder-original-ad.webp
    51.6 KB · Views: 70
  • j37.webp
    j37.webp
    61.3 KB · Views: 62
Last edited:
Just a quickie on cassettes.
If you can find some TDK AD that was a very high bias type 1 tape. It actually needed more bias than some type 2's and consequently sounded very bad on some consumer machines. Properly biased tho' it is excellent tape.

NOT to be confused with TDK D which is a pretty middle of the road type 1 ferric. Ok for the ole jamjar tho!

Dave.
 
Back
Top