T
TamaGroove
New member
Hey Guys. i am wondering what you would recommend as a first time reel to reel machine. with a decent price, reliable, and blank tapes that arent gonna break the bank.
briank
analog for the people!
How many tracks do you want/need?
T
TamaGroove
New member
in reality id like 16 but probably 8 i guess. somewhere in there
jpmorris
Tape Wolf
What I did was I started out with a 2-track machine, and used it to record mixes. That gave me a basic familiarity with the machines. After that I acquired a broken Fostex A8 and shortly afterwards a TASCAM TSR-8 which I got for a song on ebay.
I think the first question is, do you already have a mixing desk you can use? If not, you might want to look at the TASCAM 388 which has a mixing desk built into it like a giant Portastudio. It also uses 7" 1/4" tapes, which are pretty cheap. The half-inch ones used by the TSR-8 and its siblings are rather more expensive.
This is assuming that you want to do the entire tracking process on tape, of course. What some people prefer to do is integrate it with a DAW or something, and that gets a bit more complicated. I'm not sure the 388 would be good for that approach. What some people do is record on the tape deck, dump the tracks into the DAW and proceed as before. With a 3-head machine you can actually record through the tape deck into the DAW, though you'll have a delay of about 1/15 second - this is not strictly what the machine was designed to do anyway. These approaches do mean that you get to recycle the tape since it's just being used as in intermediate step.
Anyway, at the risk of being over-simplistic, the traditional approach which I use is this:
You have an 8-track machine or similar. I should perhaps point out that this is 8 MONO channels - some people coming from a DAW expect it to be 8 stereo channels and unfortunately it's not. A stereo instrument will require two tracks, for left and right.
Anyway, you connect the outputs of the tape deck to the inputs of your mixing desk. Once the tracks are recorded, you play it back, and use the mixing desk to tweak the EQ and position each track in the stereo image (left, right, centre etc).
The mixing desk will have a stereo out and you can record this into a 2-track mastering deck, cassette, DAT, computer soundcard, whatever takes your fancy.
To record the tracks, you connect your instrument(s) up to the tape deck's inputs. There is one input for each channel. If it's a band or a collection of synthesizers or something, you can set it up to record all the tracks simultaneously, or if you're a solo artist you can record them one at a time. It's possible to connect most instruments to it directly (a mic or guitar will need a preamp, though), but to save wear on the sockets it's probably best to go through a patchbay.
The best solution, if you can manage it, is to have two mixers - one to mix down the song (as described above), and one connecting to the inputs. If the mixer supports four channel groups, you can use the mixing desk itself to direct each instrument to a track on the machine without plugging in or unplugging things. Having a mixer as the front end also means you can easily adjust the EQ and add effects to the instruments as they are recorded, which can be handy.
The setup I had in 2004 was this:
http://dougtheeagle.com/lab/lab2004.jpg
...the left mixer has all the synthesizers connected to it. I used that one for routing the instruments to the tape deck, adding effects and so forth.
The mixer on the right was used to mix the song down. It was connected to the deck in the middle, the 8-track TSR-8 machine. On the right was the 2-track mastering deck.
That was the first fully working analogue setup I had, and therefore the simplest. After that they got more complicated :3
Hope that helps...
I think the first question is, do you already have a mixing desk you can use? If not, you might want to look at the TASCAM 388 which has a mixing desk built into it like a giant Portastudio. It also uses 7" 1/4" tapes, which are pretty cheap. The half-inch ones used by the TSR-8 and its siblings are rather more expensive.
This is assuming that you want to do the entire tracking process on tape, of course. What some people prefer to do is integrate it with a DAW or something, and that gets a bit more complicated. I'm not sure the 388 would be good for that approach. What some people do is record on the tape deck, dump the tracks into the DAW and proceed as before. With a 3-head machine you can actually record through the tape deck into the DAW, though you'll have a delay of about 1/15 second - this is not strictly what the machine was designed to do anyway. These approaches do mean that you get to recycle the tape since it's just being used as in intermediate step.
Anyway, at the risk of being over-simplistic, the traditional approach which I use is this:
You have an 8-track machine or similar. I should perhaps point out that this is 8 MONO channels - some people coming from a DAW expect it to be 8 stereo channels and unfortunately it's not. A stereo instrument will require two tracks, for left and right.
Anyway, you connect the outputs of the tape deck to the inputs of your mixing desk. Once the tracks are recorded, you play it back, and use the mixing desk to tweak the EQ and position each track in the stereo image (left, right, centre etc).
The mixing desk will have a stereo out and you can record this into a 2-track mastering deck, cassette, DAT, computer soundcard, whatever takes your fancy.
To record the tracks, you connect your instrument(s) up to the tape deck's inputs. There is one input for each channel. If it's a band or a collection of synthesizers or something, you can set it up to record all the tracks simultaneously, or if you're a solo artist you can record them one at a time. It's possible to connect most instruments to it directly (a mic or guitar will need a preamp, though), but to save wear on the sockets it's probably best to go through a patchbay.
The best solution, if you can manage it, is to have two mixers - one to mix down the song (as described above), and one connecting to the inputs. If the mixer supports four channel groups, you can use the mixing desk itself to direct each instrument to a track on the machine without plugging in or unplugging things. Having a mixer as the front end also means you can easily adjust the EQ and add effects to the instruments as they are recorded, which can be handy.
The setup I had in 2004 was this:
http://dougtheeagle.com/lab/lab2004.jpg
...the left mixer has all the synthesizers connected to it. I used that one for routing the instruments to the tape deck, adding effects and so forth.
The mixer on the right was used to mix the song down. It was connected to the deck in the middle, the 8-track TSR-8 machine. On the right was the 2-track mastering deck.
That was the first fully working analogue setup I had, and therefore the simplest. After that they got more complicated :3
Hope that helps...
witzendoz
Senior Member
As a first machine, 16 track I would get a Tascam MSR16, for an 8 track a Tascam TSR8, both use 1/2" tape and both were some of the last reels ever made. However condition is everything as reels can cost a lot to fix.
Alan.
Alan.
C
Chilljam
transitional phase
I'd like to add also Fostex B16 and Fostex E16 are both 16 tracks on 1/2" tape and the excellent Fostex G16/G16S.
The G16 is better built and perhaps better sounding than the B16 and E16 and around about on par with the Tascam MSR16 (although some would regard the G16 to be best 1/2" 16 track machine).
Agree with Alan though, the condition of the machine is what determines the price and THEN the model.
For 8 tracks, there are many different machines in the 1/2" 8 track format made by Tascam/Teac and Otari.
Tascam 388 (as mentioned) and Fostex A8/A8-LR/R8/M80/E8 are all 1/4" 8 track format and are much cheaper if you plan on using a lot of tape - using new RMGI tape, the 1/4" machines will cost about $85/hour of tape (@15ips with buying 7" reels of 1mil tape) whilst 1/2" will cost about $190/hour of tape (@15ips with buying 10" metal reels of 1.5mil tape).
Although this might not bother you (This was important to me) - If you have a 16 track recorder, you are going to need at least 16 channel mixer which is much bigger and heavier than the equivalently featured 8 channel mixer. Also twice as much cabling and probably twice as much outboard gear (if applicable). This might be obvious to you but some people that have only ever used DAWs and worked ITB might not realise this immediately.
T
Toastedgoat
New member
what kind of budget ?
If yo have some $$ I'd look at the mara MCI or Studer drives with a used MCI or Midas or Trident console. a big IF i had the money.
If yo have some $$ I'd look at the mara MCI or Studer drives with a used MCI or Midas or Trident console. a big IF i had the money.
lonewhitefly
Active member
My progression has been:
1. 4-track cassette (Tascam Porta 5, 1997-2004)
2. 4-track 1/4" (Teac 3340-S, 2004-2005)
3. 8-track 1/2" (Teac 80-8, 2005-2012)
4. 4-track 1/2" (Scully 280, 2012)
5. 8-track 1" (Ampex AG-300, 2012 ...)
I think it's a good idea to start out with 4-track cassette. It's by far the easiest method to learn, and to start making decent recordings right off the bat. I feel this has been a gradual progression that allowed me to learn what I can and cannot do with these limitations ... and has helped me learn how to record. You'll know when it's time to move on to the next thing, when you've squeezed everything you can out of each format.
That said, in some ways I wish I would have gotten into the larger format decks earlier on ... but who knows if the limitations were the equipment or me?!? probably me ...
1. 4-track cassette (Tascam Porta 5, 1997-2004)
2. 4-track 1/4" (Teac 3340-S, 2004-2005)
3. 8-track 1/2" (Teac 80-8, 2005-2012)
4. 4-track 1/2" (Scully 280, 2012)
5. 8-track 1" (Ampex AG-300, 2012 ...)
I think it's a good idea to start out with 4-track cassette. It's by far the easiest method to learn, and to start making decent recordings right off the bat. I feel this has been a gradual progression that allowed me to learn what I can and cannot do with these limitations ... and has helped me learn how to record. You'll know when it's time to move on to the next thing, when you've squeezed everything you can out of each format.
That said, in some ways I wish I would have gotten into the larger format decks earlier on ... but who knows if the limitations were the equipment or me?!? probably me ...
jamesperrett
Active member
I started with an old Philips cassette recorder and gradually moved up via a stereo cassette deck, Brennel Mk5 mono reel to reel and a Philips N4515 stereo reel to reel. However, my recordings took a massive turn for the better when I invested in a Revox B77 and a mixer to go with it. Nearly 30 years later I still have both of them.
The Revox is a dual purpose machine - it makes a decent master recorder and you can also build up tracks on it using the sound on sound feature. At a later stage you can add a multitrack machine but the Revox will never be redundant.
James.
The Revox is a dual purpose machine - it makes a decent master recorder and you can also build up tracks on it using the sound on sound feature. At a later stage you can add a multitrack machine but the Revox will never be redundant.
James.
lonewhitefly
Active member
I agree ... starting out with the bare minimum you need, and moving up from there is a good way to go.
T
TamaGroove
New member
Awesome advice guys! thanks! I have an Allen and Heath 16:2 so i could run my inputs into that, then take direct outs from each channel into the multitrack recorder and then back to the 1/4" inputs on my board for play back and take the left and right output from the mixer for mastering, correct? when you guys master, do you play back the song many times and perfect each channel and get eq and fx set how you like? then do you do a final mix to your two track recorder?
jpmorris
Tape Wolf
Pretty much. I usually play the song through a couple of times to work out the best balance and positioning, and then I'll record it to 1/4". What they probably did back in the day was record lots of different mixes and pick the best one at the end (sometimes they did weird things like splicing two mixes together, especially with the Beatles), but they likely had a lot more tape to play with in a professional studio.
I usually set aside about 3 reels to make an album (one for each 'side' and a spare for alternate mixes etc). Typically I'll have either rewind and record over the failed mix if it went badly wrong, or if it was a near miss, I'll often do a second take and decide which I like better. The mix I reject gets spliced out and put on a spare reel. It would be easier to edit it out when I digitize the stereo mix, but I kind of like the constraints of a traditional setup :3
(I have to confess that with the 24 track setup, mixer automation would make things easier and probably get better results than riding them manually, but it's way out of my budget)
T
TamaGroove
New member
i have heard of people listen to the mix on the worst stereo they can find to see if it sounds good, which makes sense. automation would be amazingly helpful but oh well. i am incredibly influenced with Foo Fighters Wasting Light and the fact of them using all analog. i think i have an understanding now. what kind of 2 track records do you recommend for final mixes.
jpmorris
Tape Wolf
For a 2-track, make sure it is half-track at 15ips, that is/was the standard for doing this. Both tracks are recorded over the entire width of the tape (half each). This means that you can't flip the tape over like a 4-track stereo machine or a cassette, but the quality is much improved.
Machines which use this format include the TASCAM 32, and BR-20 (which I believe is the better of the two if you can find one). The Revox B77HS or PR99 work too, but be aware that most B77s are low-speed and some are 4-track stereo. The Otari 5050MX is another machine that should work straight off.
Those machines are small, tabletop ones. The professional machines are larger and sometimes free-standing. If not they are usually designed to go on a rack trolley. Machines like this include the Studer B67, A80 (which is very heavy), A807, A810, the Otari MTR-10 and similar decks made by MCI or Ampex and I'm sure there's another obvious one I'm forgetting.
I started out with the TASCAM 32, but it was rather beaten up and it wasn't as good an experience as it could have been. I used a B77HS after that, which had a few advantages (no belts to fail) and the disadvantage of a mechanical counter and no return-to-zero. That deck ran into problems I haven't yet been able to fix and I got a Studer A807 after that.
Of the three, the Studer has been the best, but mine did require a bit of repair (replacing the capacitors in the audio path, new pinch roller) and the majority of A807s don't have a meter which is a pain. I was able to make a rough level meter from a rack-mounted VU meter, but a proper meter bridge (or the version with the integrated meters) would have been much nicer for calibration. I use a voltmeter for it instead, but it can be annoying.
Machines which use this format include the TASCAM 32, and BR-20 (which I believe is the better of the two if you can find one). The Revox B77HS or PR99 work too, but be aware that most B77s are low-speed and some are 4-track stereo. The Otari 5050MX is another machine that should work straight off.
Those machines are small, tabletop ones. The professional machines are larger and sometimes free-standing. If not they are usually designed to go on a rack trolley. Machines like this include the Studer B67, A80 (which is very heavy), A807, A810, the Otari MTR-10 and similar decks made by MCI or Ampex and I'm sure there's another obvious one I'm forgetting.
I started out with the TASCAM 32, but it was rather beaten up and it wasn't as good an experience as it could have been. I used a B77HS after that, which had a few advantages (no belts to fail) and the disadvantage of a mechanical counter and no return-to-zero. That deck ran into problems I haven't yet been able to fix and I got a Studer A807 after that.
Of the three, the Studer has been the best, but mine did require a bit of repair (replacing the capacitors in the audio path, new pinch roller) and the majority of A807s don't have a meter which is a pain. I was able to make a rough level meter from a rack-mounted VU meter, but a proper meter bridge (or the version with the integrated meters) would have been much nicer for calibration. I use a voltmeter for it instead, but it can be annoying.