Fostex 160 / 4-track audio bleed? (Resolved)

  • Thread starter Thread starter draxx
  • Start date Start date
draxx

draxx

New member
Hi folks,


I make weird experimental music, mainly with eurorack but recently I’ve rediscovered my love of the medium of tape, and am having some fun with DIY tape loops.


To explore this new sub-hobby, I recently purchased an old Fostex 160 Multi Track Recorder off Reverb. It was sold as working, but there does seem to be an issue that may be a defect, or may well be a case of user error. I was hoping I could describe the symptoms and ask for some advice?


Basically, I can record an audio track fine into track 1 (a bass, say). When I play that back and record another track over it (say a lead on track 2), when I play the recording back, track 2 includes most of the track 1 audio also (track 1 audio remains unaffected when I play back).


Is this a case of audio-bleed (apologies if this is the wrong term)? I’ve not yet got to cleaning the thing properly, and I don’t yet have a de-mag device, so they are on the shopping list. I appreciate this is an old medium, probably prone to all sorts of problems, but I don’t remember every having this issue when we made hip hop beats on a Tascam in the early 90s.


Like I say, it could easily be user error – I am careful about which tracks to enable for recording, but I could be getting my que path wrong?


Anyway, thanks for reading, and if anyone has any advice I’d be really grateful.


Cheers

Alex
 
That was the one that did clever routing I think. Normally, channel 1 went to track 1, 2 to 2 and so on, but there was an option to send things to other tracks, which used the pan knob. My guess is it's something to do with this - but it must be 40 years ago and memory is a bit dim?
 
Mate thank you so much for sharing your knowledge.. I will try that out tonight. I have the manual but I am struggling a little with it, but I’ll look again, specifically for this. It’s otherwise a lovely machine.. so I really hope this works 🙏❤️
 
Hi.

First and foremost, I hope you have the owner’s manual and have done your due diligence to study it. That is your best resource and help for the kind of issues you’re having I believe.

Section 3 of the manual dives into recording and overdubbing procedures.

You have 4 input channels, and those input channels can be routed or sent or assigned to two different places as determined by the “buss selector” switches located by the PAN knobs (the ones labeled MIX/DIRECT). Those switches determine where your signal goes. If the switch is down (DIRECT), the signal on that mixer channel is sent to the correspondingly numbered tape track (so input 1 goes to tape track 1 if you are recording and that track is armed). If the switch is in the up or MIX position that input channel goes to two places, technically: the L/R buss…two places, the L output buss and the R output buss…and how much of the signal goes to the L or R buss depends on the position of the PAN knob on that input channel. If the PAN knob is centered, the signal is sent equally to both the L and R buss. If you PAN hard L it only goes to the L buss, and same goes for the panning hard R; only goes to the R buss. If you’ve recorded to track 1, and now are overdubbing a new track to track 2, you have to be careful how you are listening to your playback from track 1. So we’ve touched on where the signal GOES from each input channel depending on the MIX/DIRECT switches, but now let’s touch on what the mixer input channel listens to, via the source select switches (the INPUT/TRK switches above the channel fader).

If you recorded to track 1 and are listening to the playback of that track during the overdubbing procedure on track 2 (so you are recording new material to track 2 and listening to track 1 in the process) and you set the source of input channel 1 (what channel 1 listens to) to tape track 1 (the INPUT/TRK switch on channel 1 is set to TRK) and have the buss selector switch (where the signal GOES) set to MIX, and the PAN knob is centered, the playback of track 1 is being sent to the L and R busses equally. So stop here and think about that…the playback of track 1 is being sent to both the L and R busses and you have armed and are recording on track 2, and track 2 is going to record anything assigned to it directly from input channel 2 (via channel 2’s MIX/DIRECT switch), AND anything assigned to the R buss, which in the settings above now includes the playback of track 1. You’re going to record whatever is new AND re-record track 1 to track 2. You have to spend some time understanding the architecture of how and what each of the 4 input channels can listen to, and where and how you can send those signals to the tape tracks and/or the L/R buss, and how you can strategically control and build your project using those source and assign controls AS WELL as the track arming controls.

Where you are probably tripping yourself up is how you are trying to solve the problem of “How do I listen to what I already recorded while laying down subsequent tracks (overdubbing)?”

Generally speaking, you do not and should not listen to your recorded tape tracks by setting the input channels to listen to them (using the INPUT/TRK switches set to TRK) during recording and overdubbing processes. You set those switches all to TRK when you are done laying down all your tracks and you are ready to mix down…all 4 input channels would be set to listen to each tape track (all channels sourced to their respective TRK), and each channel would be assigned to MIX. So then you’re wondering “Well how then DO I listen to my tracks while overdubbing?” Notice there is also a source select switch for the AUX buss…see there by the AUX knob on each channel…INPUT/TRK X (1, 2, 3 or 4). This is your “tape cue” facility…a way to listen to the tape tracks of your choice independent of what the respective input channel is set to listen to OR where it is assigned or sent to…an independent mix facility. So going back to the above scenario, if you have recorded on track 1, and are now wanting to overdub on track 2, let’s say via e-bass connected to input 2, the INPUT/TRK switch on channel 1 should be set to INPUT to avoid it sourcing the playback of track 1, and rather the INPUT/TRK1 switch by the AUX knob should be set to TRK 1, the knob should be turned up, and then make sure you have AUX selected in the MONITOR SELECT section by the PHONES level knob. This lets you listen to the AUX buss in the headphones. You can also set the channel 2 INPUT/TRK 2 switch by the AUX knob to INPUT so you can hear your e-bass connected to input 2 in the AUX buss. You now have an independent mix of your track 1 playback and your e-bass in the headphones…it will be a mono mix. When you are done recording and want to audition your project you can listen to it in stereo (by setting the input channels to listen to their respective tracks (via the INPUT/TRK switches by the faders, and assigning the input channels to the L/R buss via the MIX/DIRECT switches by the PAN knobs setting them to MIX and then using the PAN knobs to create your stereo mix…make sure STEREO is selected in the MONITOR SELECT section), but during tracking and overdubbing you’re just monitoring for good signal and such so it’s in mono. Understand these source and assign controls are used in different ways during the different stages of the process…they serve multiple purposes. They can also be used in creative ways, but we’re sticking to the basics for now.

I know that’s a lot of information, but hopefully if you read through it a couple of times and walk through it on your 160 it will help. Also remember your manual…this is all in the manual.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RFR
sweetbeats I cannot thank you enough for this wealth of wonderful information. I had to read a few times but I think I get it now. This text explains so well what I needed to know, and will make the manual (which I have and failed to understand) much more relevant and usable. I’m going to try this all out and report back with what I can only assume will be complete success.

I love BBS forums. You find the best people, who aren’t afraid to share knowledge in long form.. this is pure gold.

Thank you ❤️

EDIT: All working perfectly now. Thank you again for taking me under your wings guys. Super appreciated ;)
 
Last edited:
Awesome. You’re welcome!

I’ve always found it helpful to think of the multitracking process in three stages, generally speaking:

1. Initial tracking
2. Overdubbing (adding more tracks to the initial tracks)
3. Mixdown

That’s it. Yes there are other things that happen like maybe bouncing tracks down (which is just an interstitial mixdown), and of course there is mastering/post-production, but, at a high level, the multitrack recording process I consider is captured in those three coarse categories above. And there are general themes of how you set controls on the mixer and recorder for each stage. So you can break it down and get familiar with each stage and its general settings, and sometimes that can help one to get comfortable with a device by breaking it down into steps and getting familiar with each step.

Glad things are moving forward, but do come back and continue the thread as you acclimate and come to the next crossroad or that “Now how do I ______?” question.

The 160 is a somewhat unique balance of simplicity but still with usable baseline features, such as the flexible sourcing and routing, tape cue facilities, and some flexibility in the monitoring. Note that though the MONITOR SELECT section only has two options, STEREO and AUX, they can be selected either/or OR simultaneously. So you can monitor your L/R buss, or AUX buss, or both at the same time, and the AUX buss has the dual functionality of the per-channel selectable inline monitoring capability to listen to individual tape tracks independent of the input mixer and its settings, or act as a pre-fade monitor send for each channel; mix and match. Because you can listen to either or both in the monitor buss (headphones/monitor jacks), and because the AUX buss also has its own output jack, you can get quite a bit done with the 160/meet the need of a decent amount of scenarios with some creative approaches and yet still have a device that isn’t overwhelming to interface because of its focused feature set…also has individual track outputs, some unique handling of the input jack array which amounts to there being mic or line jacks for inputs 1 & 2 as well as insert points for the mic inputs…is high-speed (better fidelity), isn’t too small (easier to interface more full-size controls with some space in between them) but is still light (less than 8lbs).

Have fun.
 
Last edited:
This is sage advice man thank you once again.

Up until very recently, I'd been mainly recording one-takes from my modular synth jams. They would go into ableton live, where I would ham-fistedly try to do some vague attempt at sound engineering after the event haha. Then it gets chucked onto Bandcamp for my 3 listeners. But, it was easy, and fun as a workflow. I would manage levels of different sound sources, live while playing, using VCAs and mixers, and whatever I got at the end was what it was - a jam. I did branch out a bit with some Elektron gear, and trackers, which were more leaning towards song structure, but even so it was all pretty 'jammy'.

Earlier this year I attended a workshop where we made short tape-loops, and that I think triggered a long-sleeping love for the medium of tape. Thinking back to the 'songs' we used to make, I thought the 4-track process would be a nice thing to get back into now; yes the ability to re-record different takes, in layers was quite new to my workflow, but I think the 'sound' of tape also attracted me to this way of working. It's funny how you can get so many plugins that recreate the 'tape effect'.

Maybe I want to do something different, or maybe I reminisce to a simpler time. Back in the 90s, if you had showed me a DAW I would have dropped tapes and vinyl instantly haha. Now, non-digital technology has much more charm - is that just nostalgia? I don't know. What I do know is that I want to move away from the PC a bit, and from being online generally. I just want to make some tunes for myself, and maybe others might get some value out of it. I'm not discarding social media, I'm not a purist. But I'm also happy to explore a way of existing that I remember, before the internet.

I will be back, I'm sure, with more questions. As a side, I am considering picking up a Marantz PPD 222, or something similar. I expect anything I find will need work, so I may be creating more threads with other tech questions too haha.

Anyway, thanks again guys, it is awesome to know this place, and you people, are out there.
 
I’m not a purist either…have a wide range of tools both analog and digital around here. I grew up in the 70s and 80s and so am rooted in pre-internet/personal computer/digital existence, so for me the draw to analog definitely includes an element of nostalgia, but that’s only part of it. Digital tools open a practically limitless realm of tools, and, overall, for me that creates a distraction. So I find I have an easier time getting a sound I like within the boundaries of the analog equipment that’s here. Is it just my perception it’s a good sound? Is it just lack of patience or self-restraint or skill that I get distracted with the digital tools? All could be true. But at the end of the day using analog tools OR using digital tools in an “analog way” (like using a DAW interface and software as little more than an 8 or 16-track recorder, for instance) just preferentially works better for me. And that in and of itself may lend itself to better results for me. Plus I like the principle of the less time efficient process…having to wait while the tape spools, for instance. We live in a world where we’re always trying to cram more into the constraint of time. In the studio world money drove the advent use of multitracking…auto-location tools…gap-less punch-in…and then into the digital age…much more for much less…I’m not saying these things are bad, but it wasn’t always about what made things sound better, rather what reduced costs. And since recording music is not my livelihood it’s easy for me to grapple with conflict of creating art vs maximizing profit and freely choose what, for me, feels like more natural artful process and equipment. I also like the idea that the sampling frequency of analog recording is infinite. Yes there are profound limitations…and tape noise, and distortion and other non-linearities. And a wide range of quality capacity between different the echelons of the analog tape realm…and the machines can be an expensive and time-consuming PITA to maintain. It’s not for everybody. But it suits me. And I think it sounds great. And I don’t think it’s just perception. The other thing too is because of the things you can do with tape with regard to playing with saturation, EQ curves, bias levels, etc., a tape machine feels a lot more like an instrument in the project than just a signal capture or production tool.
 
Back
Top