16 track reel to reel

[jho1986]

What are some good 16 track reel to reels I can look into? I am new to the analog world and have no idea how much a good one would cost. Maybe a 1000? Anyways... and help would be appreciated.

 

[Bigsnake00]

Tascam MSR-16 is a great recorder, 16 tracks, 1/2" tape.
Fostex makes a B-16 16 track that uses 1/2" tape
Ghost owns the MSR and could provide better insight, but I know you can find these for under 1000

 

[Bigsnake00]

Actually I'm not sure Ghost owns the MSR but I know its 16 track tascam

 

[arjoll]

Ghost has the MS16 which is a slightly older 1" 16 track.

I've used an MSR16 and its a nice machine. From the sound of it some of the Dolby S ones (MSR16S) may need some work on the NR, but I transferred some stuff recorded in '93 last November (after baking the tapes) and still sounded great with dbx.

ARP has its larger brother, the MSR24, which is a 1" 24 track.

 

[jho1986]

thanks for all the help... ill have to check those guys out.

 

[jpmorris]

Probably the single most successful 1/2" 16-track was the Fostex E16. It's a more modern design than the B16 which it replaced, although in theory it might be easier to keep a B16 going into the future (since it will use more standard electronics, the E16 and G16 probably use Fostex' own weird microprocessor).
The G16 was the last one.

 

[Seeker of Rock]

thanks for all the help... ill have to check those guys out.

I'm the one arjoll was referring to with a bad Dolby system in my MSR-16. It is the only MSR-16 I have owned, so I don't know how many other of the Dolby models have problems. BTW, MSR-16 either has DBX noise reduction of Dolby S. The machine's audio sounds incredible, but unfortunately mine has some hiccups.
Alot of people prefer Dolby NR to DBX, other people don't care one way or the other. End result is you need a noise reduction system (and they are built into the machines) that works. Based on that, I would recommend the MSR-16 with DBX noise reduction. You'll love the sound of the MSR!

 

[A Reel Person]

[est.]...

Tascam:...
MSR-16 ... $650-$950
MS-16 ... $950-$1600
MSR-24 ... $2000-$2750

I like dbx NR, so I dunno what'yu'talkin'bout............

 

[arjoll]

I'm the one arjoll was referring to with a bad Dolby system in my MSR-16. It is the only MSR-16 I have owned, so I don't know how many other of the Dolby models have problems.

I was thinking of the other guy who was in here as well who had struck problems with dry caps on the Dolby boards. Its just something to be aware of - the dbx stuff I transferred sounded absolutely great, and there's no reason to think that there is a bigger problem with the Dolby boards. Just something to be aware of

 

[Seeker of Rock]

I like dbx NR, so I dunno what'yu'talkin'bout............

Dave, I was just repeating what I have been told or read on NR, not knocking either one by any means.

 

[brooksy]

for what its worth..i've compared the dbx on a tsr-8 and the dolby s on an msr-16s and both systems get rid of the hiss (the hiss is much worse on the 16-track of course), but it seems that dbx changes the tone of the recordings a little bit. dolby s is more transparent as one would say. But in the end both machines did a fine job for me.

 

[Muckelroy]

Get a 2" 16 track machine. Take the plunge! (Evil grin.)

Of course, a $175.00 10.5" reel of tape at 30 ips would only yield about 17 minutes. Worth every penny if the band pays for tape, though.

-callie-

 

[superbeatballer]

Dbx

To my ears dbx kills the sound on my 388 recordings. My solution is to record hot and track without it. I'll accept a little hiss to yield a bigger end result any day of the week.

 

[EDAN]

To my ears dbx kills the sound on my 388 recordings. My solution is to record hot and track without it. I'll accept a little hiss to yield a bigger end result any day of the week.

I've found all DBX systems to muddy up the sound a bit. I'm told this is not supposed to happen and that something is wrong with the NR if this is the case, but I've owned two 388's, a TSR-8, my brother also owned a TSR-8 and all of these machines suffered from the muddy problem (not real muddy mind you) but I doubt very much all four machines had problems with their NR system. I often record without the NR and unless I'm listening for it the noise never bothers me.

 

[FALKEN]

well I have been experimenting with not using NR and recording hot.

I think I am going to go back to using NR.

I think it helps the signal get onto the tape somehow, like a shoehorn.

If that makes any sense.

Its not really a matter of hiss. I think I might actually prefer the sound of the NR.

crazy???

 

[cjacek]

Could it be that the higher pitched hiss on the 388 (without NR) somehow makes the recordings sound brighter ?

 

[EDAN]

You know I did a little in-depth listening last night recording acoustic and electric guitar with and without the NR. I think my choice of the word "muddy" isn't quite right. I'd say it sounds fuller when recording with the NR. Sometimes it seems to take up more headroom in that I find it "seems" there is more separation in the mix when recording without NR. Now, I know there is an old trick that the pros used to do, that is to record certain tracks and instruments with the NR engaged and then turn it off on playback and the tracks pop out and have more life to them. I found this to be the case and I've done it mostly on drums. The problem is on the TSR-8 you have the NR on four tracks at a time thus making it difficult to use this method without getting a little too much hiss as you are limited to whatever tracks are grouped on the corresponding tracks controlled by the NR. So I find the drums almost always sound better when I disengage the NR on playback (in the mix, they are too hot sounding alone) but the instruments on the two or three other tracks might not sound as good or cause to much hiss. Oh, well, some times it comes together and sometimes it doesn't, it still a heck of a lot of fun!

 

[superbeatballer]

From this thread it sounds as if dbx should give good results, but the difference on my machine with and without is like night and day, rosey and stinky.

I guess I'll have to haul this 90 pound monster down the shop once again.

 

[Beck]

NR will drift over time. We're dealing with mostly second-hand equipment these days, so I'm not sure how many people other than me and a handful that I know here have ever purchased new analog multi-tracks, or used them when they were new.

It wouldn't be unusual for decks of the same model and age to have drifted out of calibration in a similar fashion.

dbx has worked well for me on everything from my 244 & 246 portasudios to my TSR-8. It is not as transparent as no NR at all, but it should not adversely affect the sound if working properly. There is “pumping” and “breathing” historically associated with poorly implemented dbx. Percussive sounds can get rounded, but this is primarily due to the peaks exceeding specified levels.

It needs to be used properly – you can’t bury the meters with dbx and expect a clean sound, nor can you use hotter tapes like GP9, 499 or SM-900 without recalibrating everything.

The TSR/MSR in particular had a reputation for unusually tight and transparent dbx integration from the factory, as dbx goes.

With a S/N ratio of 108 dB on the TSR-8 there is no reason for levels to exceed 0 VU by much. Using 456 @ 250 nWb/m you just won’t realize a saturation effect without giving the NR a conniption. If you want a tape compression/saturation effect use 406 instead of 456 on these machines.

IMO, Dolby S/SR is probably the most transparent next to no NR. But those can dull the sound as well if out of cal.

Even Dolby B can sound good if calibrated right.

 

[superbeatballer]

I've been using 457 or 407 which is the right tape, but I was hitting it pretty hard with the dbx on. I'll try backing off a bit and see if that helps.
B.T.W., I didn't mean to hijack this thread, but it just seemed to evolve into the noise reduction topic.