Setting up a pair of DBX 150's with an Otari MX5050bqii 4 track

RRuskin said:
Try recording without any compression. Save that for any track or tracks that need it when you mix. With good NR you can print low, get little to no tape noise, and maintain dynamics. Printing hot enough for saturation defeats the dbx purpose and will almost always introduce unwanted artifacts.
Click to expand...
Ok will do
 
RRuskin said:
Try recording without any compression. Save that for any track or tracks that need it when you mix. With good NR you can print low, get little to no tape noise, and maintain dynamics. Printing hot enough for saturation defeats the dbx purpose and will almost always introduce unwanted artifacts
Click to expand...
Thanks for all the helpful replies from a fellow WA tape head!!!!
 
Jzoha18 said:
Hello!
My otari has been killing it under regular recording circumstances (one collapsed bounce to channel 4 and 3 more channels for a total of 7 tracks). It's a truly pro level unit and I wanna shift the majority of my recording to it. Unfortunately it's only 4 channel's and 1/4 mds-36 tape I use ain't cheap. So I use it at 7.5 IPS and I've been very happy. But trying to do stereo bounces to my mixdown deck (tascam 112rmkii, I know not optimal but USB interface is unusable too much interference) and back I realized the pair of DBX units I got for it need to be installed if I want to get away with 8 track mixes at this speed and probably at 15ips too under my current constraints. Hopefully it improves the outcome. Does anyone know if it's difficult to set these NR units up? Do I just plug the 1&2 rack into channel 1&2? And the other rack with it's matching channel numbers? I've heard some say it needs to be biased and others say it's simply level Matching. First time using a seperate NR system and I would like my beautiful otari as optimized for my needs as possible. It's too much machine to not constantly be tracking too. Anyways sorry for the essay!
Click to expand...
I've discovered a way to solve your problems. It's called a "computer". Using this latest device allows us to record a huge number of audio and MIDI tracks with no need for noise reduction at all. Maybe give it a try.
 
Don't do it, Jzoha! The next thing you know you'll be using 74 tracks and 26 plugins to record a 2 minute acoustic guitar song! Why? BECAUSE YOU CAN!
 
I'm glad that I learned the craft/art of recording on analog tape but would not want to go back to it again for current productions. IMHO, those who wax nostalgic about the virtues of tape probably have very little experience with it. Back in the day, the engineers & designers I knew were twisting themselves into knots to avoid/overcome tape's limitations & idiosyncrasies. Why else do you think high-output tape, compression, limiting, noise reduction; etc. were developed? I for one, do not miss having to recalibrate for different tape types or every fresh batch of tape of the same type, having to 2nd guess what the low-frequency head bump is going to do to the sound on playback, or the dreaded, "this reel is bad and we need to transfer before we lose all our work" blues.
 
Airlane said:
I've discovered a way to solve your problems. It's called a "computer". Using this latest device allows us to record a huge number of audio and MIDI tracks with no need for noise reduction at all. Maybe give it a try.
Click to expand...
What's the fun in that?
 
TalismanRich said:
Don't do it, Jzoha! The next thing you know you'll be using 74 tracks and 26 plugins to record a 2 minute acoustic guitar song! Why? BECAUSE YOU CAN!
Click to expand...
I like using the computer to track and mix largely synth based songs or beats but my own music with guitars and vocals and keys and stuff I learned on 4 tracks and I have had a lot of fulfilment continuing on tape and it's a fun little side hobby alongside being a musician
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top