8-track bleeding?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gmiller1122
  • Start date Start date
gmiller1122

gmiller1122

Addled but happy
i've read some messages about tracks on 8-track analog recorders bleeding into one another.

anyone have a similar experience?

should i just stick to a 4-track and use an outside mixer (for drums, for instance)?
 
All analog units...

...experience track-bleed to a certain degree... the cassette format is the worst offender (especially 8-track) due to the limited track width and therefore less separation between tracks.

Related to the track-bleed problem in the PortaStudio world is the channel crosstalk within the mixer section of these PortaStudios, which is usually quite horrendous.

Bruce
 
Got it. Thanks for the info.

I'm really torn b/c I like the 'simpler' approach of analog, but don't want the bleeding and other related problems.

On the other hand, maybe I DO have the patience to learn all the digital stuff.

Either way, there are pros and cons and I'll just have to keep reading.

Thanks, Bruce.
 
I don't think digital have to be much harder to use, if you use dedicated hardware, lika a digital porta, for example.
I haven't used one myself, just checked them out, and they seem pretty simple to use to me.

Never could get on good terms with Cubase though.
 
To reduce the effects of bleeding, put the bass and drum tracks on the outside of the tape (i.e. 1 and 4 or 1 and 8) if you can rig this in your recording technique. That way the (usually) most dynamic signals are only bleeding to one adjacent track not two. Other thing is, bleeding is not the end of the world; if you do encounter it in problem areas where it's not masked by other tracks you can easily gate it out.
 
Thanks!

All your suggestions/comments are much appreciated.

Tapehead, I get what you're saying about the 1+4, etc., but what do you mean by "gate it out?"

(See that 'newbie' near my name? It's applicable in more ways than one!) :)
 
Is it true that more bleeding occurs on an 8-track than on a 4-track? It seems to make sense to me, but I'm leaning toward the 8 only because I'd like to reserve 3 for drums.

If using the 4, I could just run the 3 drum mics thru a mixer into one track, though, right?
 
The smaller the track width, the bigger the opportunity for track bleed (amongst other problems). Think about it, 4-track and 8-track PortaStudios use the same tape width (1/4"), which one will have more tape width per track?

Whether the difference is REALLY noticeable or not depends on the specific unit, but in general terms, the 8-track will have more bleed....

Bruce
 
So, what's all this I hear about reel to reel?

Are these machines used as multitracks or as mixdown units?

Thanks, Bruce!
 
Could be both...

Reel-to-reel multitracks are fairly rare now, but their quality over the cassette-based multi-tracks is significant.

1/2" or 1" 2-track reels are still common -- that warm analog sound, etc...

Bruce
 
1/2" or 1" 2-track reels are still common --

I guess I'm missing something...it seems lots of folks here use them, but for what and WITH what? How would a typical home studio set up look like w/a reel to reel?
 
A gate is an outboard box that cuts of the signal if it goes under a specific volume. Setting a gate so that it is closed during the silent parts of a track will reduce the noticeble track bleeding a lot. But it requires your porta to have either inserts in the mixer, or direct tape outputs.
 
8 track

I just switched over from a 4 track cassette to a 1/2" 8 track reel to reel tape deck (Tascam TSR 8), and there is definitly a difference in sound. The reel to reel not only has more tracks but the sound is 'bigger'. There is more presence. I had to go out and buy a seperate mixer, since the TSR 8 doesn't have a built in mixer, like the portastudio. It simply has 8 line ins and 8 line outs. All 8 always play back, but on the recorder you can select which of the 8 you want to record on. In order to avoid plugging and unplugging, you'll need a mixer which can support that. I bought an 8 channel mixer which also has 8 dedicated tape returns, so it works quite well. When recording, I just turn up the tape returns of the tracks I want to play along with, and push the record button on the reel for that track.

I will say this though, there were certainly hidden costs (al least to me) that showed up. For one, you need cables. I went the low budget way, but it still cost me $70 just to hook the mixer to the recorder. The tape is a major difference. I used to use the Maxell XL2 60 on my porta studio, which cost like a buck for 20 min of record time. THe 1/2" reels, however, at my local music store, cost $48 for about 30 min of record time! You can get them through the internet for less ($35 or so), but still. I find that I don't just let the tape roll and mess anound. I have to plan things out a lot more. Also, if your deck has been used a lot, it may need a head alignment or relap (for my machine, about $300).
 
There was a lot of hidden costs for me too, when I got my Fostex A-8LR. I got themanuals from the Swedish distrubutor. That was $100! That DID include the service manual, but I have actually had use of it, so it was a good investment. I also bought an calibration tape, since I realized that the Fostex had some seriously weird calibration going on. Another $100. I also bought a demagnetizer. Another $100.

So my $300 Fostex turned out to be a $600 Fostex. :)
Ah well, it was still a good investment in my studio.
 
gmiller1122 said:
1/2" or 1" 2-track reels are still common --

I guess I'm missing something...it seems lots of folks here use them, but for what and WITH what? How would a typical home studio set up look like w/a reel to reel?
Click to expand...
Sorry - I thought I was being clear.... they're used as mixdown machines!

;)
 
Thanks everyone...

That REALLY clears things up for me. (My "getting back into recording" notebook is getting a bit full and it's time to organize my thoughts...) :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top