budget budget budget analogue studio?

[_brian_]

hi lads i wonder if you can help me. i'm starting to lose the plot because i'm really struggling here. i've used a daw most of my recording life but i hate it, really really hate it. i went to college to learn about mixing etc which apparently contained an element of analogue recording. well so i was told. i have no real interest in recording with a daw anymore and i want to learn how to record using an analogue system. the trouble is all i have is a portastudio. i want to learn the real analogue way or things splicing etc as i consider that kind of musical engineering to be an art form unlike digital recording. I just cant afford the stuff that i stumble over and to be honest even ebay (in the UK) has very little analogue equipment. i dont know where to look or what to look to buy first, analogue is really dying now . Can you give me any advice? I mean i haven't even found a tape head demagnetizer for my portastudio that isn't reasonably priced. Are there any modern companies producing any tape based product lines?

Please no smart ass comments about sticking to digital and the like please and for anyone that can give me any advice or help thanks very much

 

[The Green Hornet]

Yo Brian:

I imagine you might find a Tascam 488 8 tracker out there. I used to use one but eventually went to where you don't want to go.

With the Yam unit I have now, I can burn a FULL CD from the HD in about 9 minutes. Time is valuable for everyone.

I got some nice sounds from my old 488 and a mini-disc unit but the nice large round sound was much better with the digital box. New units now have mastering algorithms built in which really make things kick ass or makes a vocal really "clear," like some of Sinatra's analog recordings!

I guess there are a few tape engineers around or "someplace" where you can learn more; however, in the Colonies, most new cars come ONLY with the CD player--no tape. Does that tell you something?

Good luck in your analog anventures.

Cheers from the Colonies,
Green Hornet

 

[_brian_]

i'm looking to branch out beyond portastudio techonology green, notice i stayed away from saying whether analogue or digital sounded better in my first post!! I have my reasons for kicking digital to the side and learning analogue tech. perhaps one day you will have a reason after learning your digital trade as i have . I've used some very high end equipment but mostly all digital and none of it mine!! Digital is cheaper, more reliable and easier that's why analogue is dying - those afore mentioned things are music to the music BUSINESS's ears. The analogue enviroment which has no real visual element to create music by but ONLY the audio elements (seems to me anyway outwith the colony) to be a much better place to reside. Even if you think that is the past. And yes it sounds better

Anyway back to my original post...

 

[A Reel Person]

Budget Analog??? There's only one solution.

Move to Los Angeles. Not only is it a buyer's market there, but I've heard in LA Tascams grow on trees!!!

What's the real answer? Maybe look for a Tascam 38 or TSR-8. They're affordable for 8 tracks, but 1/2" tape is getting a bit harder to find.

Ever hear of Fostex? Maybe try an R8 for 8 tracks on budget 7" reels of 1/4" tape, (a lot easier to find). Sound quality is not bad for the format.

The Tascam 388 is always recommended at this budget level, but you said you wanted to move away from Portastudio format recorders,... but the 388's a good'un.

As mixers go, you have some really basic stuff like the Tascam M208, M216 or M30, which are affordable. More complex mixers are the M308/312/320, but higher end gear means bigger budget.

There's 1/4" 4-track reel/reels like the Tascam 3440, 34 or 34B. That's nice for really basic stuff, but 1/4" tape is more plentiful. Reel 4-tracks are fun and affordable!!!

I could bust your budget fast by suggesting an MS-16 1" 16-track reel/reel,... for appx. $1200 on good days.

That's all I've got for suggestions, and I already put you in debt!

 

[Terfyn]

I am a little surprised, and impressed, at your determination to keep to tape. I have been through tape, DAT, Mini disk and am now on digital. (Fostex MR-16)
The new machine acts so like a tape recorder in its basic recording mode then it has all the editing facilities of cut and splice etc. It is not as versatile as, say, the Zoom HD16 which gives loop, stretch and reverse facilities but, for the occasional times I want that, I use Audacity.
I would think that London is your best bet for cheap analogue kit. For digital, I find Dawsons of Warrington very good, I have used them for many years and source my stuff from the Altrincham shop. (I come from Altrincham)
North Wales is a bit short of kit suppliers.

 

[cjacek]

Hey, Brian, I'll try to add a more specific comment later but for now, did you know the following forum exists:
https://homerecording.com/bbs/forumdisplay.php?f=21

You may find it to your liking.

Peace... going to bed now [yawn]..

-----

 

[_brian_]

reel person - thanks for all the great advice... again I came accross an R8 in good working order on ebay and managed to get if for £160 inclusive of postage costs. I thought I was going to have to pay a lot more for an 8 track reel to reel. Athough the spare parts may be difficult to get hold of the tapes (like you said) are one of the easier formats to find. Hopefully I wont need any spare parts until I'm able to upgrade.

Do you have any advice with this particular model? Which tapes would be best to look out for? Bias etc?

Thanks ever so much again - can't wait to get my hands on it!!

Cjacek - Nope didn't know that forum existed but now I do. may I come in and join the analog colony?

 

[A Reel Person]

That's fine. Sounds like you got a good dea£



The Fostex R8 was set up for Quantegy (Ampex) 457 tape, 1800' length on 7" spools. Some people also recommend 407. I think 456 and 406 (1200') would also be suitable, but some people would be quick to point out the 1200' tape is thicker and puts more stress on the transport and wear on the heads, as well as perhaps changing the tape-head contact area very slightly,... but IMO those are of smaller concern, as I don't really think you could wear out the deck completely unless you put the R8 into a full time production schedule.

Standard Operating Level is 250nWb/m = 0VU on these decks, with the ability to push it to +3VU which is the Maximum Operating Level on 456/457 tape. 406/407 would be 3db less for Standard and MOL. For the exact bias, you'd have to look that up.

As with all things, as well as my personal opinions, YMMV!

 

[_brian_]

Thats brilliant thanks, i can use my vlz mackie mixer for the moment, i'll just use it's channel inserts to feed the tape machine and to monitor it's outputs (i guess thats basically how its done in the analogue world anyway). The only thing is each channel doesn't have its' own metering but I guess the headroom in the mackie would be higher than the r8 - so I really just need to watch the tapes metering? Could be way off here (I'm guessing) but I'll read up about it.

Thanks again for all your help everyone

 

[A Reel Person]

Sounds like you're on the right track!

.................

 

[_brian_]

just recieved my r8, the heads are in really good con and the allignment looks spot on, the unit is very clean but the tape path looks like it needs a little clean. it came with the midi unit as well. the seller sent me an old tape to try the r8 out and it was a little wonky pitch wise when i first played it. It seems to take it a while to settle down mabye 10 sec. It's going to be impossible punching in by the looks of things. I don't know if it's the tape or the machine itself. Anyway, i'm still testing it so i'll get back to you guys soon to tell you more about it. It's my first reel to reel so i'm having to learn a lot at the moment. If any of you guys can offer any tips or shine some light on the pitch problem I'll very much appreciate it, cheers

 

[_brian_]

i've found a little light shed guys and mabye it's not looking too good

https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=256870&highlight=pitch

Aaron's the guy I bought the R8 from

Mega Help Needed!!!

 

[A Reel Person]

Analog Aaron's a competent analog guy and a bit of a DIYer.

In general, any slow down or problem with pitch is often related to the tape stock itself that's gone sticky. After eliminating the tape, the capstan drive belt often becomes worn or stretched over the years and may need replacing.

Maybe Aaron can post his own opinion.

 

[_brian_]

i don't think anything can be wrong with the tape, once the r8 gets up to speed it stays there whether i stop rewind or whatever on whatever part of the tape. It seems to need a waking up period. For example this morning I started it up and played the tape - slow, slow , slow. No matter what I tried I couldn't get it to start playing at the normal speed. Eventually I thought I'd just leave it playing, after 7 or 8 mins - back up to normal speed. It's a huge drop in speed as well. Even the pitch/speed control couldn't make up the difference. It's just a little strange. Ok it has always been sluggish even after the initial "wake up" period but it only takes a few seconds to get in the zone when playing and recording. I'm just worried if I do decide to keep the machine that it may become reduced to spares in a few weeks. I am technically minded but have no experiance with repairing a reel to reel.

 

[hungovermorning]

The Fostex R8 was set up for Quantegy (Ampex) 457 tape, 1800' length on 7" spools. Some people also recommend 407. I think 456 and 406 (1200') would also be suitable, but some people would be quick to point out the 1200' tape is thicker and puts more stress on the transport and wear on the heads, as well as perhaps changing the tape-head contact area very slightly,..

DO NOT USE 456 ON THE R8!!!! This Fostex has a very weak transport system. I nearly killed my old one using 456 after only a few recording sessions. This is hugely important because Fostex does not make a single replacement part for it. They sound great, but be gentle and use the thin stuff.

 

[_brian_]

I gave the R8 a little maintenance, I just oiled the capstan & pinch roller & cleaned the machine up a little. I was terrified about knocking things out of alignment and distrupting something which would later turn out to be grave but, it looks to have worked!! Internally it looks excellent but like I said I didn't venture too far. The unit now doesn't need a warm up period & the transport isn't as slugginsh. I love this machine. Sounds great, it's very easy to operate as well, I'm just going to get some new tape for it.

The Dolby C doesn't seem too impressive though, it sucks all the remaining high end out & my tracks sound dead. It does eliminate the noise though, but at what cost!! I've used dbx type II on my wee 414 and it was a valuable tool, but dolby C is like taking a hammer to an egg when making an omlette. I might look into getting a dbx 150, that might do the trick.

All in all though even after my initial fright with the R8 I'm completly sold

 

[A Reel Person]

My friend,...

I gave the R8 a little maintenance, I just oiled the capstan & pinch roller & cleaned the machine up a little. I was terrified about knocking things out of alignment and distrupting something which would later turn out to be grave but, it looks to have worked!! Internally it looks excellent but like I said I didn't venture too far. The unit now doesn't need a warm up period & the transport isn't as slugginsh. I love this machine. Sounds great, it's very easy to operate as well, I'm just going to get some new tape for it.

The Dolby C doesn't seem too impressive though, it sucks all the remaining high end out & my tracks sound dead. It does eliminate the noise though, but at what cost!! I've used dbx type II on my wee 414 and it was a valuable tool, but dolby C is like taking a hammer to an egg when making an omlette. I might look into getting a dbx 150, that might do the trick.

All in all though even after my initial fright with the R8 I'm completly sold

I'm so glad to hear the good news! I'm glad it was not too serious.

Be careful at first that no oil residue migrates from the capstan or transfers to the pinchwheel rubber or tape media itself.

I've also not been a big fan of Dolby C, but other more tech savvy members would be quick to point out the electronic calibrations have to be nearly spot-on for Dolby C to perform to it's optimum,... as would also be the case with dbx or analog recording in general. With that being said, I've been mostly a Tascam user, and I've been very happy & have gotten good results with dbx,... tho' that's a highly biased opinion.

For a lot of purposes, I've grown accustomed to adding a little high end pre-emphasis (boost) to compensate for the rolloff of highs you get with NR and analog in general. Boost it just a hair on the record-side of things (prior to hitting tape), in gentle amounts based on T & E.

 

[analog aaron]

In general, any slow down or problem with pitch is often related to the tape stock itself that's gone sticky. After eliminating the tape, the capstan drive belt often becomes worn or stretched over the years and may need replacing.

Maybe Aaron can post his own opinion.

Hey Wait!!..I just read this... I am not the same Aaron that Brian bought the machine from! I've only owned 2 R8's, still got both and they're working great. Just wanted to clear things up so nobody thinks I sold this guy a Bogus Machine! Ha

 

[A Reel Person]

Nah, it's no offense, dude, man,... I know yer a trooper and worthy DIYer!

Looks like maybe some guy hopped on eBay and stole yer name!~ Blast him!

Nah, anyway it's just a coincidence that you're a similarly named but sucessful R8 user. You & I both know what a cool deck that is! _brian_too_now_!

Best,
Dave

 

[A Reel Person]

Yo,...

DO NOT USE 456 ON THE R8!!!! This Fostex has a very weak transport system. I nearly killed my old one using 456 after only a few recording sessions. This is hugely important because Fostex does not make a single replacement part for it. They sound great, but be gentle and use the thin stuff.

My Bad Dude!

Yeah, that goes to remind me that Fostex in those 7" models had belt driven hubs as well as capstans. A bit cheap and cheezy,... eh, no offense, eh,... but yeah!

The build quality of a Fostex always differed from Tascam, with the latter being more tank-like and solid. Fostex, while I'll not bash outright and call them cheap (again!), but will tactfully say they pulled some ingenious ways of cutting corners to save cost, that helped them dominate the format because they sold at half the price of a 1/2" 38 and M30, and probably of any similar 7" Tascam, (by assumption).

I will not bash Fostex, because they were truly innovative and that they dominated the 7" market is proof, however, the 7" transports are indeed lighter-duty than Tascams. On the other hand, they proved their utility by working great and just as adertised,... just not super-heavy duty like the few non fostex counterparts, (heh heh; wink~wink).

My misplaced recommendation (retracted) is more pertinent to my mostly Tascam bias in experience. My apologies and thanx hungovermorning for the very timely correction and info!

As I said, the "purists" would surely recommend not using 1200' 1.5 mil tape on any similar Tascam 7" transport, as I'm not an expert or true purist. Nonetheless, sorry previously and in advance by recommending 1200' tape on decks that are optimized for 1800' reels. There are differences in the engineering sense, tho' minor and yet not downplayed by myself from my DIY experience of 7" reel/reel recorders. BTW, I'm mostly a "388-man", tho' that's another post,... ever heard of ie??? [Heh]

Sorry for the wordiness. Later!