16-track recomendations???

  • Thread starter Thread starter MartyMcFly
  • Start date Start date
M

MartyMcFly

New member
Hi...
Im looking for advice about a good (16 track analog "reel-to-reel"). What brand and what features should I expect? I would prefer the largest (widest) tape possible. And preferably one that can handle midi.(I thought I saw one with midi?!?!) Of course I want used. I just have no idea where to look and what brand to start with. I want one with a matching mixer too. So can some one in here help get me started on my analog addiction..
 
I would not go for an analog 16-track multitrack machine today (unless you really, really want the noise, hassle, and maintenance you would be able to avoid with almost any digital setup). If you really, really want an analog multitrack tape machine for the warmth - or the sake - of it, some good brands are Teac, Tascam, LyRec (are there still any of these around?!), Studer, Ampex, and Otari. Try to look for a 2" machine, they are more sturdy and better built than 1" machines, but also bulkier and heavier, so make sure you have the necessary space to spare (and a door wide enough to avoid embarrasing moments when installing the thing.) When buying used equipment, remember to have a professional check up the condition of the heads and transport - you wouldn't want a machine with a worn-out head. They are expensive and may even be impossible to obtain or relap.

Forget about midi. At least directly. Most multitrack machines come equippped with - or prepared for - a SMPTE interface (movie industry standard - makes synching to video or movie footage a breeze). SMPTE-to-midi-timecode converter boxes do exist, however.

For mixers, go for brands like Soundcraft, Allen & Heath, maybe Behringer. The most important feature is the capability to be able to listen to the tracks from the multitrack together with the direct signals - i.e. a mixer built for recording instead of a P.A. mixer. Make sure it has at least 16 input channels and 16 output channels.

And remember: There are good, digital alternatives today...

regards, Nils
 
And remember: There are good, digital alternatives today...
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Then why are you visiting an analog forum? It never ceases to amaze me when people who like digital post here. And 2" machines? Who do you think your talking to here. Last time "I" looked, this was "Homerecording".com, not Prorec. Maybe YOU can afford 2"tape. But then again, what would you do with it?
fitZ
 
And remember: There are good, digital alternatives today...
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Then why are you visiting an analog forum? It never ceases to amaze me when people who like digital post here. And 2" machines? Who do you think your talking to here. Last time "I" looked, this was "Homerecording".com, not Prorec. Maybe YOU can afford 2"tape. But then again, what would you do with it? I mean, get real.
Hey Marty, if YOU are a home recording "enthusiast", look for a Tascam MSR-16. I have TWO, synched by a "midizer". I love these machines. As far as the 2" machines are concerned. If you are in need of "that" much quality, your in the wrong place in the FIRST place.
fitZ
 
Whats funny Rick is he is recommending two inch machines and behringer mixers. :eek:

Nuff said
 
Hey come on guys...
Lets not let this get into a digital vrs analog war thread...
I have a digi-001 but would like to go back to analog. I started on analog wayback with 2,4,8 track "tape" portastudios respectivley. I know most in here dont consider those true Analog as they just recorded to regular tape. But then I decided to go digital with a Roland vs-880 and then to a 1680. Mostly the lure of more tracks and digital editing of tracks lured me in. But recently I remembered what it was like to record with analog. And I missed it. It was fun. You had to go about recording on it differently...
Now i want to get into it but I want reel to reel. Cause they have better sound quality and are just more fun to use. Plus I long for real faders and a real mixing board. I could settle for 8 tracks but would like 16...unless the 16 track machines are that much more problematic. I kinda had my eye on the tascam 38-8. I think thats what its called.
Is there a web site that can compare and contrast these older machines? I would like to see what else is out there...
 
Hmmmmmmm.................Behri**** :D Apart from that one indiscretion, Nils' post was full of reasonable advice even if it did deviate from the subject matter of the original post.

Marty, I have in recent times installed a Tascam ATR-60 1" 16 track for my indulence, this is an alternative to my Fostex "D" series h/disk 16 track recorder. As I see it, Tascam are probably the best option as both parts and support are fairly readily available and there is a range of decks still easy to find in the market place.

Research, research, research.................................

:cool:
 
ausrock said:
Research, research, research.................................

:cool:
Click to expand...
Alright then...could you point me in the right direction to start my research...I cant seem to find any sites that deal with 8-16 track analog units...either reviewing them or listing features...
 
the msr-16 rocks! its a beast of a machine. i got mine in almost new shape the owner hardly used it for 600... and i use a tascam m2516 mixer that i got for 300.
 
Marty,

Have you been here........... http://www.tascamforums.com/ .........to the "analogue section". You may see some familiar faces there. I don't know of any specific site that will give you the answers, I just fished around over a period of time picking up random bits of knowledge, then by chance an ATR became available and I didn't hesitate to buy it.
 
I use a TASCAM MS-16, 16 track, one inch machine with dbx type one professional noise reduction and I have no issues with hiss or thin/flat sound.

The machine originally retailed for about $20K when new and commonly sell on Ebay for a couple of grand.

Mine came with a 10 point auto-locator, remote track arming and a roll-around case to hold the transport, channel cards and dbx units.

It runs at 15ips, has vari-speed built in and has accessory ports for external synchronizers and remote control.

The transport is built better then a tank and can run 24/7 in a professional studio environment because that was what it was designed for.

The frequency response is rated at 30 - 22Khz and signal to noise ratios run at about 100db, which is fully competitive with the best digital has to offer but to me, it sounds more natural and warm and doesn't crash, ever! :p

Maintenance-wise, it's been a reliable deck for me and all service issues I have had with it in the past have been solvable ones and DIY ones with much knowledge learned right here on this bbs.

If you are looking for reviews, you just read one.

Cheers! :)
 
Hey come on guys...Lets not let this get into a digital vrs analog war thread...
Click to expand...
Anytime someone who likes digital, comes on an analog forum and recommends digital.... :mad: thems fightin words. :p Besides, what did he expect....OH COOL>..DIGITAL YEA! :rolleyes: TELL ME MORE..OH AM I IMPRESSED....fuuuuuuck. GIVE ME A BREAK. Especially whey YOU asked about ANALOG REEL TO REEL!! Now, how do you spell....IDIOT!!
Now i want to get into it but I want reel to reel. Cause they have better sound quality and are just more fun to use. Plus I long for real faders and a real mixing board
Click to expand...
:D :D How bout "real sound"? ;) Fun to use. Now your talkin....when's the last time you heard a digi person say that?

Whats funny Rick is he is recommending two inch machines and behringer mixers.
Click to expand...

I rest my case. :rolleyes:

fitZ
 
This thread just shows how easy it is to start a flame war... - anticipated that. Now will everybody please forgive me for endorsing Behringer? I really, really meant Alto. :D

What I didn't get across in my post was that, given the choice between a 1" machine and a 2" machine, priced similarly, I'd go for the latter. All things being equal, a wider tape has a better signal-to-noise ratio, and you might even get away without using Dolby or DBX on the recordings. Even if the machine is carefully adjusted, it will have a greater impact on the sound quality than the mixing desk you need to go with it.

I NEVER stated that digital is better than analog equipment - it is just more cost effective and easier to maintain. I'd probably prefer a top-notch analog setup to a mediocre digital setup any day. Even if I am completely in the digital recording domain today, I have brought with me a lot of the habits of analog recordings. I still have to restrain myself from 'saturating the tape' by reflex - digital saturation doesn't sound good at all...

regards, Nils
 
One other thing I want to throw out here...
As I said earlier, I do have a digi-001 with 6.4 software. And I do like being able to visually see the audio waveforms and being able to chop and paste whatever whereever.
What would I be looking at to run say, the tascam 38-8 out of the machine and into my Protools rig for editing (IF NEEDED) and bouncing down then back to my Tascam? Or would that totally digitize my sound? I guess I could go without the digi but I wanted to get the best of both worlds...
 
Marty, now you're actually making sense...! If you bounce straight to ProTools for "a bit of editing", i.e. no effects, and then bounce back to analog multitrack, you wouldn't have much of a problem provided your levels are within limits. It would be like bouncing between two analog multitracks, but without the extra generation of tape noise.

Depending on your setup (I don't know the digi-001 specs in detail), going via digital would not put the sound in jeopardy - why else have pro recording studios been using digital sound processing equipment since the 70's? Actually, you have three benefits from working in this way: bouncing without extra tape noise, digital editing capabilities, and retaining the 'warmth' of analog tape.

I will not go into a discussion about the different digital systems here (one flame war per thread is enough IMHO), but keep an eye on those levels while transfering...

I made my first CD five years ago, exclusively using material recorded on my Fostex 480 4-track multitracker, transfered to n-Track (by a method that is now in the n-Track manual), and mixed in the digital domain. A wonderful way to work.

Note to peers: It's not what you record with, it's what you record . Period. I actually like the wax cylinder suggestion in the forum heading... :D

regards, Nils
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top