4 track cassette only good for demos, while real records are made on 2" Studer?

[cjacek]

This is looong, so bear with me

Guys,

The above title subject was merely meant to make a strong introduction to my post and ideally stimulate some good conversation. Here goes.....

BEFORE YOU READ ON, let me just say that I'm not being down on the large multitrack machines, pro and otherwise, as I know the benefits of owning one but that I'm making a point of how much is enough in hardware to go commercial, at least sonically speaking.

In almost every situation, whether it be from a book, forum or another person, you often get comments that such and such machine is only good for "demos" and the target of such, IMHO erroneous, advice are the TASCAM 244, 246 and 388 "portastudios". To a lesser extent are the 1/4" - 1/2", 4 - 8 track TEAC / TASCAM machines but these too are termed “semi-pro” or “for home use only”.

I was in a "situation" several days ago when a friend of mine, who also works in a studio, came by for a visit, to just chat and see my tape machine collection. Prior to this day, however, he was a good representative of the many who believe that such "narrow" and measly formats, especially compared to the 500lb Studers and Otaris, are simply not capable of being more than a musical sketch pad, whatever that means.

I made a simple test and that was to make a stereo dub, from a very good commercial CD and Vinyl, a non complex arrangement, something with a bare minimum of instruments and vocals, something which could be easily recorded from scratch by any competent musician (talent and skills would be the only requirement). This was recorded to the TASCAM 244 / 246 and 388.

I played back the mix on a good sound system, much better than what the average set is like in your typical household.

He was amazed at the results.

The 244 / 246 captured the major essence of the sound picture, being only deficient in very high frequency content but did not detract from the overall experience. The TASCAM 388, without being completely anal about it, captured most, if not all of the audible sounds.

I then made the argument that if the talent and experience were there, that there would be no reason to fault the above mentioned recorders for not being able to produce commercial releases.

Why are people using the terms "just for demos" or "sketch pad for ideas" when referring to the above?

I made another test, using a typical cassette recorder, one running at low speed with dolby B. Well, the quality sucked.

I'd stay clear of the typical cassette deck, for serious work, but anything higher, why not release a commercial album with?

Is it possible that people simply have psyched themselves out from actually honing their skills on those small footprint recorders and achieving commercial success, 'cause they've grown to believe, for so long, that their 246 or 388 is just a limited, good only for "demos" machine?

I urge anyone, who has recently bought one of these units (making only sure they’re mechanically / electronically sound), to dub their favorite CD or LP onto it and play it back. It may sound simple and moronic to listen to my type of reasoning but doesn't it make sense? Are YOU perhaps the only reason your stuff doesn't sound as good as your fav records?

Look, if my 246 or 388 can playback my dubbed, fav CD / LP, near to or dead mirror image to the original, then I know it's not the machine which is the limiting factor.

Wouldn’t a top audio producer, surrounded by competent musicians, with the best studio space available, be able to replicate some of the hits of the 50’s, 60 and 70’s using some of the so called “good only for demos” machines? I think yes.

What are your thoughts?

 

[iamjethro]

I hope so. I would love to have unlimited tracks, effects,etc. However, I will keep my mixes and parts simple for now on my 488 and just do the best I can and get better (hopefully). It is what I have to work with, so instead of wishing I am going to start doing.

 

[YeshuasFan]

I'm not sure which model he used, but about 25 years ago Phil Keaggy recorded an album in his basement on a Tascam Portastudio and released the results commercially. The LP was called "Underground."

 

[cjacek]

I'm going to try to find that Phil Keaggy record and speaking of famous releases, a lot of people remember the Bruce Springsteen Nebraska album made on his 144 TASCAM but what is not often stated is that the production was less than ideal and, from what I read and heard, no one even cleaned the tape path on that thing, leading to wow / flutter and a compromised resolution of the final product and, of course, post processing which was done in studio, leading to further loss in quality. That Nebraska album is not a good indicator of what a TASCAM portastudio can do.

 

[trancedental]

It would be very interesting to take a cassette portastudio or narrow format 8 track tape recorder into a good quality studio, use some better quality mics & pres, better sounding acoustic treated rooms / spaces & mix on good monitors. And to compare the results.

Also the skills of the person operating the recording equipment would also be a big factor .

 

[cjacek]

It would be very interesting to take a cassette portastudio or narrow format 8 track tape recorder into a good quality studio, use some better quality mics & pres, better sounding acoustic treated rooms / spaces & mix on good monitors. And to compare the results.

Yes, it would be very interesting but, IMHO, it's not neccessary 'cause it's all there with a press of a button. Anytime one wishes to know what their "narrow track" is capable of, is to dub something of quality to it [as I explained earlier]. The recorder doesn't know if you're dubbing or recording something from scratch in a good quality studio with all the bells a whistles and a big name producer to boot.

Also the skills of the person operating the recording equipment would also be a big factor .

...and that's the problem 'cause the only word you hear about those machines, is that of recordists who really haven't tapped the full possibilities of such units, and they're plentiful, as such their recording technique and talent being mediocre at best. You just don't hear spectacular productions from those people and those that do manage something special, you just don't hear about period. Whereas, you don't really hear any mediocre productions from those who have the 500lb studers, otaris, ampexes etc....

Could it be that many don't take the TASCAMs of the world seriously, as the result of default inferior talent outthere or people who simply don't give a damn to post their spectacular results? It's like the people who trash these machines confuse the talent with the machine ? Do you know what I mean? At the same time, there must be tons of productions which suck, made on those 500lb monsters, that never get heard (quite the opposite to the semi-pro gear) and you only hear the good stuff. It is then said that "real records are made on a 2" machines", yet again confusing the machine with the talent, but in an inverse way? I hope you follow?? 'Cause I'm having trouble..

It's about PERCEPTION IMHO.

 

[mawtangent]

With a good song concept, and the technical ability to perform it in place, a 4-track cassette machine is capable of rendering a very accurate recording (especially if you can get everything on the 4-tracks, without bouncing). I remember recording on a Yamaha MT-50 4-track cassette (which I still own) in the mid-90's. Two friends and I had a keyboard (for sequencing drum and bass parts), electric guitar, and a mic for vocals. We had the volume cranked up in a little room, running the 4-track into an old, but fairly powerful, stereo system, using it for monitoring. I remember how accuratly the 4-track would playback what we were doing. Mixing down to a regular cassette deck (and not knowing what I was doing) probably sucked a lot of sound out of our songs, but today most home recordists have better/less distructive options for mixing down. The 4-track works great if you are recording, for example, two guitars and two vocals (each having its own track), or, I would think, if you (and your friends) get very creative, with recording several instrumentalist/vocalists at once on each track, (three performances/parts on each track = 12 different different parts without bouncing, of course your panning might end up sounding like the Beatles-era recordings, but that wouldn't be so bad). I would think 90-99% of the listening public wouldn't have a clue that they were listening to a recording done on "amateur" equipment (that is if the song was "good" and performed well)

There have been so many forgettable/filler songs (think: half the songs on most albums) performed with technical excellence, recorded with the most expensive equipment, by professional recording engineering talent.

A good song, performed technically well, recorded competently on a well-maintained 4-track set-up (including a decent mic and effects module, and, I guess, one could also think of optimal room treatment and mix-down/mastering options) would be "commercially viable" in my opinion.

 

[Beck]

This is looong, so bear with me

Guys...

I can give you a definitive answer on one aspect of how the perceptions were created and perpetuated. Very simply it was pitched that way by marketing depts.

Manufacturers that made both “Pro” and “Semi-pro” lines gave clear directives to their marketing departments to carefully separate the two, lest people that were shelling out the big bucks for “Pro” machines would opt for less expensive alternatives. This was happening at TASCAM and Otari and there was a delicate balancing act at Studer/Revox as well. They were downplaying the capabilities of their own less costly products.

What blew the scheme apart was when Fostex was established, and they only offered a “Semi-pro” line. Speaking of which, whenever you hear someone say digital killed analog, you can correct this historical misconception. The Fostex E-16 was the beginning of the end for large studios with 2” 16 and 24-track monsters. Home and project studios began to flourish and more people started laying down basic tracks at home, only later bringing them into the studio for sweetening and mastering.

There were just a handful of people at first, but artists used products like the TEAC 144, TASCAM 388 and various TASCAM open reel decks to lay down initial tracks and even complete songs and albums. But once the E-16 arrived the project studio took off and the industry has never been the same. TASCAM was late on the scene with their ½” 16-track. They could have done it earlier, but Fostex more or less forced their hand.

So, semi-pro narrow-track analog machines began killing off super studios long before ADAT, DAW and MHDR did. In fact, the digital revolution branched off from the analog home studio craze. There was nothing pro about Pro Tools.

The big difference… narrow-track analog took advantage of real advances in head design and other improvements using a mature technology that put smaller machines on a par with older fat-track beasts. In contrast digital has been a work in progress from the beginning… a step backwards sonically and IMO still incomplete as of this writing.

Can commercial albums be produced on modest narrow-track analog machines? Of course they can.

Ask Tom Scholz; he laid down nearly all the tracks for Boston’s début album on a 1-inch 12-track Scully… an album that is currently 17 times platinum and counting. This may be the greatest example ever of what a talented individual can do with modest equipment.

Ask Bruce Springsteen; he recorded “Nebraska” on his TEAC 144 portastudio at home in 1982.

Ask Madonna; she laid down basic tracks at home on a TASCAM 388 and brought the tapes into the studio to be used on the finished product.

Ask Graham Nash; he did recording for the “American Dream” album using his Fostex E-16.

But these are just a few references to people that most people have heard of. Before easy and cheap digital took over, hit records were made on anything and everything and these “semi-pro” machines were in homes, small and large studios, television A/V… you name it.

Can it be done? It was done!

 

[cjacek]

I got it Tim, good post! What I really hate about this whole mess is this whole thing about companies & institutions continually having to bullshit people into believing all the crap. Everything is a lie, from top to bottom and, sadly, people believe it, swallow it and say its tastes yummy. Wow.....

 

[cjacek]

The 4-track works great if you are recording, for example, two guitars and two vocals (each having its own track), or, I would think, if you (and your friends) get very creative, with recording several instrumentalist/vocalists at once on each track, (three performances/parts on each track = 12 different different parts without bouncing, of course your panning might end up sounding like the Beatles-era recordings, but that wouldn't be so bad). I would think 90-99% of the listening public wouldn't have a clue that they were listening to a recording done on "amateur" equipment (that is if the song was "good" and performed well)

There have been so many forgettable/filler songs (think: half the songs on most albums) performed with technical excellence, recorded with the most expensive equipment, by professional recording engineering talent.

A good song, performed technically well, recorded competently on a well-maintained 4-track set-up (including a decent mic and effects module, and, I guess, one could also think of optimal room treatment and mix-down/mastering options) would be "commercially viable" in my opinion.

Excellent post. An alternative would be to get a inexpensive half track, like say the TASCAM 22-2 and bounce externally and then again to the 4 track, however many times neccessary, which would yield a better S/N ratio than internally bouncing (especially on cassette). Or maybe bouncing to another 4 track (great on wider formats) or even a CD recorder.... it's possible then to create complex arrangements with such a minimal setup and a competent recordist.

 

[cjacek]

...just to add that it really ticks me off that people, some with no obvious motive and seemingly knowledgeable, spew off this erroneous and idiotic avalanche of mis-information as it relates to choosing gear. It's like they've been "coached" or have had that information pounded in for so long that they're unaware that it doesn't even hold water. And that's scary. It's like if you believe a lie long enough, it becomes the truth and more people repeat it over and over (this is from another thread, re the CD, if I have it right).

All I got to say is, give me a couple of TEAC 3440's and a Sir George Martin and the notion that you can't make a successful commercial release will be forever erased.

 

[Vagodeoz]

Most audio gear should have something like this:

Warning: Does NOT include golden ears and/or criteria.

 

[Hi_Flyer]

The biggest limitation of these machines is their low track count (especially four track portastudios). In a professional situation. You need to be able to accomodate a client's needs, whatever they may be. 4 or 8 tracks just doesn't cut it, even if sonically, those four tracks sound good.

also I think there are factors other than fidelity. Take the Tascam I just traded in for the Otari for example. It was far more difficult to bias, calibrate, align and service the Tascam. You had to take the thing apart. The Otari could be set up quickly and easily, controls were easily accessible fom the back, it has a built in o-scope, etc... In a professional environment, where time is money and you charge clients by the hour, you can't take an hour to take apart your deck, you need to get it set up within minutes.

Sometimes the difference between "pro" and "semi-pro" is just extra features, not sound.

 

[Hi_Flyer]

All I got to say is, give me a couple of TEAC 3440's and a Sir George Martin and the notion that you can't make a successful commercial release will be forever erased.

Doesn't it make sense to extend this line of thinking to any recording medium? Even (gasp!) DIGITAL?!!?

 

[Vagodeoz]

Sometimes the difference between "pro" and "semi-pro" is just extra features, not sound.

Not sure about that... Behringer for example always out-features their rivals. They always have way more features than similar products costing twice.
I love behringer, but they are not pros

 

[trancedental]

If you do a seach on google for mp3 & insert the machine you are interested in (-minus ebay!) you will find plenty of stuff to listen to, I've heard some well recorded music.

 

[Beck]

Doesn't it make sense to extend this line of thinking to any recording medium? Even (gasp!) DIGITAL?!!?

If only digital didn’t have that “Digital quality” about it.

Sir George would be smart enough to roll off the high frequencies above about 12kHz, and/or master to analog, or otherwise combine digital and analog mediums for best results.

One error people often make is to visualize different formats on a continuum something like this:

Pro fat-track analog > Pro digital formats > Semi-pro analog > Semi-pro digital
(or mix then up in the order you think of them)

However, digital and analog are so completely different that smaller analog formats still sound like tape and still don’t sound like digital. They’re not on the same scale.

The biggest limitation of these machines is their low track count (especially four track portastudios). In a professional situation. You need to be able to accomodate a client's needs, whatever they may be. 4 or 8 tracks just doesn't cut it, even if sonically, those four tracks sound good.

This is true of 4 and 8-tracks in most commercial environments. But the 1" and 1/2" 16-tracks and 1" 24-tracks... they really shook things up despite their semi-pro status, to the chagrin of the industry.

Sometimes the difference between "pro" and "semi-pro" is just extra features, not sound.

This is true. For example, the TASCAM 22-2 has specs equal to machines many times its price, but no bells and whistles at all... not even a return-to-zero feature (I still love it though). And machines made for commercial environments are generally easier to calibrate... better access. But then they need more frequent calibration.

 

[Herm]

And now for some bad recording and playing from Herm and the boyz.

 

[Herm]

Lets not forget about we dont get to hear what alot of the "commercial" stuff sounds like before it goes to mastering.
Some of those boys save alot of asses and can make a huge differance to the sound of a recording.




I guess I should say this was just a jam at my house a few years ago. We had never played the song and I had just thrown up a few mic,s and hit record on my Fostex R8 and fostex 812 mixer.
Didnt mean to highjack the thread. Just having some fun.
I wish we could get more of you guys ie Tim Dan Jeff and everyone else to post some of their work on here that is done with their analog gear.

 

[SteveM]

Hey Herm, that had some pretty good fidelity. The singer sounded a little like John Hiatt. Nice going, impressive!