Convince me to go analog.

[ampeg52]

Ok so here's here the deal, I'm 16 years old and have been interested in recording for a long time. I've recorded track by track into various DAWs through a Behringer mixer plugged into my sound card for years now but now that I've got some money from a short lived fast food job (manager was a douche) and am selling some old gear I want to get some better equipment. As I live with my parents and there is no room to really record drums or a full band live so I want to be able to use gear that I can bring to other places (peoples basements, practice rooms) and record. The main people I will be recording is people my age and I'm only going to charge $10/hr so I can cover the price of the medium I end up recording on (tape or hi8 tape probably) and then use the rest to put back into buying more gear.

Up until recently I've been planning on grabbing one of the Tascam DA line of recorders as I only currently really need 8 tracks and that would offer me the option of expansion, a cheap medium to record on, and I would be using a mixer to, well, mix (I've been wanting to be more hands on for some time now).

Ok now here's where the convincing comes in, but don't lie to me. I've always preferred the sound of old recordings to new ones, I know the sound isn't all in that it is tape but it would be hard to get the "tape hit hard" sound from anything else. Now I've been looking at some reel to reel records, mainly the Fostex 80-8 and I'm just wondering how convenient tape would be for my uses? How durable are tape machines, if I carry one around to tons of places is it liable to break? If I buy tape from say ww.realdealpa.com what is the difference between the different 7" tapes and how much audio can I record? Honestly, would it be more efficient to just use a digital recording medium for my purposes? I know if I record a band of mine I want to mix down to tape and press to record but if a band I record just wants mp3s is it just a waste to record to tape in the first place? Any input is appreciated.

 

[A Reel Person]

It's never a waste to record to tape,...

but it's more commitment required than anything,... to do it right.

You've defined your goal as recording live bands to 8-tracks. That's easily doable with many different analog setups. The Fostex line of 8-track reel recorders would do the trick, (A8LR, Model 80, R8), but the "classic" A8 records only 4-simul, so would be off the list of viable units. The Fostex units record on 7" reels of 1/4" tape, which is a budget medium and is still easy to get. People consider the 1/4" 8-track medium as a compromised, home-use format that somewhat limits the high fidelity aspect of the recording, but with proper technique this detriment is limited or almost negligible. However, the 1/4" 8-track Fostex reel decks are smaller and more portable than a more massive 1/2" reel 8-track format from Tascam. Portability is also one of your key requirements. The Fostex R8 is not only the most modern of Fostex 1/4" reel 8-tracks, but it's scoped for easy portability with a built-in handle on top. The problem with Fostexes is that if you run into more difficult maintenance problems, repair parts and support are almost non-existant. However, easy maintenance such as a rubber drive belt is more universally available and moderately easy to replace as DIY.

Tascam made one 1/4" 8-track, the 388, and it's a gem. It's actually a recorder set in the deck panel of a mixer, and thus is a self-contained solution. The 388 is highly regarded in inside circles, and is a real fine unit in many respects. If you get a properly working 388, you get to skip ahead directly to the tracking phase. The 388 will do 8-track simultaneous recording and the mixer section is top notch. It's hard to go wrong, but I don't want to pidgeon hole you immediately with that option,... tho' it's a good'un.

Tascam made a few 1/2" reel 8-track recorders, but I'd focus mostly on the 38 and TSR8. Being larger, they're accordingly less portable, but it's doable for remotes. 1/2" reel tape is still available, but way more expensive than 1/4". Still, a 38 or TSR8 is a fine basis for an 8-track recording studio, if you're inclined to go that way.

With any standalone recorder, you'd need an appropriate recording mixer to go along with the recorder. The field of qualified mixers is a bit more wide open for choices. Several choices from Fostex and many from Tascam.

You might be best served to find the scope of your recorder before you start browsing mixers, but F/I, there's the Fostex 450 or Tascam M30, M200-Series or M300-Series. For the big guns you'd look at the Tascam M512. Anything larger than a 12-channel mixer and your beyond the "easily" portable range of mixers.

Depending on what city you live in, dictates local availability of equipment like this, but local pickup is always preferred. Many decent recorders have met their fate in UPS shipment. Beware.

That's all for now. Good luck!

 

[A Reel Person]

Not all, but more!

My friend,

You stated your goals and a loosely defined set of equipment you're after. I have a few more comments, if I may.

The DA-Series, DA-38, DA-88, DA-78HR are well regarded machines, I suppose, but I've heard this type of digital tape-based recorder regarded as "the worst of both worlds". Mainly meaning, the earliest DA converters were a bit "grainy" by today's standards, and tho' it's digital, it is recording to tape, and is therefore prone to a host of tape-based maladies,... one of which is failing media and transports. The DA-Series and anything like it (ADAT) is based on a design that's most like a VCR transport, with complicated tape path, rotating heads and all that "internal mechanism" stuff, that if it fails,... you're in for expensive bench repair & it doesn't lend itself to DIY, for the most part. Nuff said of that, but it's your choice, not mine.

What I really wanted to say in this post, is that you may be best served to get either a Tascam 688, 8-track cassette Portastudio that records 8-tracks simul thru the built in 20 channel mixer,... tho' if you get this make sure you get a manual with it for operation! It's more complicated right out of the box than most other multitrackers.

Also, along the same lines is the Tascam 238 Syncaset, a rackmount cassette based 8-tracker that requires an external mixer, but is a real performer in this midline category of recorders.

The 688 should be considered because it's highly functional and still portable and self contained,... a real boon for remotes. The 238 is a bit more like any other standalone recorder, but being cassette it's a lot more economical and accessible than any reel recorder previously mentioned.

Out.

 

[sweetbeats]

Ampeg52,

+1 to absolutely everything A Reel Person said.

If you are looking to multi-track live on-location, your setup and tear-down will be greatly simplified with the 388 or 688, but you'll want to make sure that you have a flight case outfitted for the 388 if you are taking it from site to site...and help. It is about 95 pounds I think...also, if you lean toward the 388, make sure you look for one for which the tape path (heads mainly) are in good shape. Replacements are hard to source unlike the 1/2" 8-tracks from Tascam.

Yeah, the 688 is cassette-based, but don't sell it short...you'd be surprised at the quality of recording you can do with that machine and it has many very "modern" features that would be helpful to you on-location like user-defineable scene presets for mixer routing and such to go along with the scene library...built in MIDI sync too...not that you mentioned that, but with a MIDI interface for your computer (really cheap if you don't have one already) you can sync the 688 to your DAW. And media is widely available and cheap (relatively speaking). If you are looking for samples of what can be done on these Tascam 8-track cassette-based units, I might be able to get something posted up...a band I was in in the early 90's did an entire project on a 488mkII...lesser kin to the 688...A Reel Person would have suggested it but it also will only record 4 tracks at a time.

The R8 plus a mixer could be a great option too, but heed the concern about parts and service...not there. I've heard some amazing stuff done on a Fostex 1/4" 8-track. Just keep in mind the cross-connecting you'll have to do with separate mixer and recorder/reproducer.

And yeah...7"-reel 1/4" tape stock is much cheaper than 1/2"...think $70 ~ 80 for a reel of 1/2" tape, under $20 easily for a 7"-reel of 1/4"...cassettes $2 ~ 3 each for good quality.

Um...yeah...what A Reel Person sed +1.

 

[mshilarious]

Honestly, would it be more efficient to just use a digital recording medium for my purposes? I know if I record a band of mine I want to mix down to tape and press to record but if a band I record just wants mp3s is it just a waste to record to tape in the first place? Any input is appreciated.

I have two thoughts: first, $10 an hour for carting around a eight track tape machine? I'd stick with fast food--I did three years at $6 and hour and less in the 1980s at a pizza shop, that bought plenty of gear (two American Fenders, a couple Peavey amps, a Gibson LP, a couple of Yamaha acoustics, an Ovation that I won't admit to . . . ) and I actually got paid for hours that I worked.

Second, if bands are paying you $10 an hour, I somehow doubt they will be doing vinyl pressings. They probably can't even pay the cost of shipping the records back to them.

That said, no it's not a waste if you want to record to tape. But if the bands want mp3s as a final product, then I'd go with a back-saving measure like a 424mkIII and transfer to DAW . . . that will fit your budget better too.

Remember 90% of the sound is performers, instruments, room, and microphones, in order of importance. Make that 95%, actually.

 

[stevieb]

At the tape speed of the Fostex 1/4-inch machine, and the reel size it accomodates, you get something like 17 minutes of recording time PER TAPE. You would be changing reels every other song- hassle and cost would go way up, even using cheap tape. And just try to imagine the scene- the band is paying you for a recording, you are missing audience reaction to every other song, maybe having to wave to the band to hold up for a bit while you chase the reel that rolled off the table and down to the street...

IMHO, an better way to go would be to record to a self-contained digital machine on-site, and after you have mixed the tracks down to stereo and remastered them all you want, in the digital domain, RUN YOUR FINAL MIX THRU TAPE to "warm it up."

Advantages:
Far less bulky gear brought to the shows;
No tape change issues;
Much greater on-site reliability;
No signal degradation on mix-down;
Analog warmth still there.

Disadvantage:
You don't get to look like a total lost-in-the-50's geek at the gigs. No, wait, maybe this is another advantage...

 

[Hi_Flyer]

1- Good tape machines are not portable. Even a tascam 388 is gonna be a bitch to lug around.

2- A good analog set up (tape + mixer + outboard) is not cheap.

2- Cassette formats can sound OK, but I think 24-bit digital sounds better than the best 4-track I have ever heard. I was not impressed with the sound of the recordings I did on 8-track cassette formats.

3- I presume you are recording modern rock/punk/metal type stuff? If so, you are gonna want high tack counts (definitely more than 4, and probably more than 8).

4- If you are 16 yrs old and you are recording other bands with teenagers or other inexperienced musicians, you are gonna want a format that allows for easy editing and punches. Trust me on this.

You can get a used Firepod + a laptop running Reaper + a couple SM58s for the cost of a decent 8-track tape machine alone.

If you have your heart set on tape, you can pick up those tascam 424s for cheap. But anybody with even the slightest clue when it comes to engineering is gonna be able to take a Firepod and a handful of SM57s an produce recordings that will sound light years ahead sonically (especially to younger ears that are used to "modern" sounding production).

Don't get me wrong, there is something cool about tape and working in the analog realm, but for some people its just not the right solution. I would put an analog setup on a "wishlist" if I were you, maybe when you have your own place and have some space.

 

[zazz]

just thinking back to when i was 16 and we were wrestling with various multitrack and reel to reel recorders.

if someone came along with a digital pc based recording system from today we would have thought we had died and gone to heaven.

at the age of 16 there is so much more to learn before you get anywhere near the subtilties of analog vs digital.... when did you start recording ..6?

 

[sweetbeats]

Wow...

Ampeg52,

Lots of good advice from all posters above. Should be good to get your brain spinning but I think it is all spot-on.

I have a 24in 20out digital rig and I've used digital for years and done several 20+ track live projects...I've returned to analog out of a passion for it and convictions and experience that have left me with a distaste for digital...neither is "right". They will always coexist in my studio...they work well together, but in my heart the analog portion of the studio is the anchor, and it is approaching that point operationally too.

Though I much prefer the analog sound, I would never be lugging my machines around.

1. My back wouldn't last (and I'm talking about 1/2" 8-track machines here)
2. My machines would get beat up...you know very well they don't make this stuff anymore and there is a common adage around this forum that "we gotta keep this stuff going"...one way to do that is to give it a safe perch in your "studio" and keep it clean and dry.

Digital is tremendously convenient. That's what I would use for live work.

You asked for us to "convince [you] to go analog". We love analog gear here. Overall we are not convincing you to go analog (at least at the on-location tracking stage). That should tell you something...

 

[trancedental]

An important thing to point out here is that you need to make sure you a buying a well maintained machine if you go analog, there are many people out there who will try to take advantage of potential buyers. Plus you will need a decent standard external mixer.

Personally I would buy one of those recent Tascam or similar digital portastudios with at least 8 track inputs for live recording & inbuilt mixer & FX if I was in a similar situation, the mixers & preamps would probably be better than a Behringer mixer IMO!

Perfect compact solution for location recording, add a few decent mics & some outboard pres / EQ later on when cash allows & you should make great recordings.

 

[lonewhitefly]

i highly recommend analog over digital whatever the situation. in your particular situation, the Tascam 388 would probably work best. You can find these for around $400-$500 and it includes the built in mixer w/ mic pre-amps, etc. basically everything you need to record. many really cool sounding, legitimate albums have been made on 388s, including more recent ones. people love these machines. tape for this is cheap and readily available.

i would personally use cassette 4-track before any digital system! there is a character that you can get in a tape recorder that you will not find in digital.

 

[A Reel Person]

Well,...

Analog is never convenient, especially now, but it never was! No use in reminiscing about the old days!

There's something to be said about scoring the digital Tascam 2488 if u really need an upgrade. The 2488 records 8-simul to hard disc and has all the convenience of a Portastudio. Just $700 convenient for the 2488mkII and $800 convenient for the 2488neo. It gets you tracking right out of the box with a self contained and portable unit.

 

[ampeg52]

Getting some mixed answers here but I expected that. When I said convince me to go analog I didn't really say it as in "Give me a final push to go analog." but more as in "I'm probably going digital but I kind of wish I was going analog and want to be coerced." so to anyone who suggested digital that's totally cool. Ok, now sorry if I don't mention you guys by name but I didn't expect this many responses in day and I don't really feel like re-reading all the posts for that purpose. To the guy who said I should stick with fast food, the point of recording isn't to be my main income I'm actually applying at a couple other fast food places and a pharmacy, the point is that I'm interested in recording bands, I know a lot of bands and they happen to record crappy demos to put on their myspaces and hand out at gigs. The figure of $10/hr was pulled out of my ass and anyone who is willing to give me a more fair estimate is more than free to do so I just figured the income would be to pay for the medium I was recording on. I'd only be recording people I either know and get along with or people I like the music of and if anyone gave me any trouble I'd just leave. I'm in it for the experience and end product not the income.

Ok now, at this point I'm still leaning towards one of the Tascam DA line of recorders just for the fact that it'll a) be more portable b) be cheaper and c) not be a computer. Don't get me wrong I love computers, I'd actually go as far to say that I know more about computers than most kids my age. It's just that I absolutely HATE cut up and time perfected, pitch corrected overprocessed lifeless records and I not only want to say no to creating them but not have the means to do so. I've used Protools and similar programs before mainly to do hip hop remixes along with softsynths and softsamplers and while its powerful it's just not my thing. I don't really want to go the cassette route because (I know it's not professional cassette but) my first record experience was with a cassette recorder and the noise bugs the hell out of me and you can't really get the same warmth you get from tape (as far as I can tell) which is basically the only reason (besides the gear lust) that I would want a reel to reel set up. But feel free to prove me wrong sweetbeats I'd love to hear the recordings.

I really appreciate all the suggestions and I've been googling like a mad man and a lot of them seem really cool and I'll have to look more into them. Now a lot of you inferred that I was going to be recording live shows. While this might happen what I'll probably end up doing more of is basement and practice room recordings. I know these won't sound like they were recorded in a professional studio and I don't care. Some of my favorite sounding records are old school punk records so I'm not really into hi-fi anyway. The main point is just to document what's going on musically in my community, give people who can't afford to get to a studio a chance to record their music, gain experience and see if I might want to pursue this as a career at all, and have some fun. I don't want to be Brian Eno or something.

 

[cjacek]

I want to be able to use gear that I can bring to other places (peoples basements, practice rooms) and record.

........I will be recording is people my age and I'm only going to charge $10/hr

.......... I only currently really need 8 tracks and that would offer me the option of expansion, a cheap medium to record on, and I would be using a mixer to, well, mix (I've been wanting to be more hands on for some time now).

............would it be more efficient to just use a digital recording medium for my purposes? I know if I record a band of mine I want to mix down to tape and press to record but if a band I record just wants mp3s is it just a waste to record to tape in the first place?

I chose some of the more critical words from your post, as this has convinced me that I'm not so sure you should be going analogue. Most of this stuff is just to hard [and dangerous] to carry around.

If you were setting this gear up for yourself, in your home, then that's another story but, personally, if I were in your shoes and still were insistent on using tape, for 'on location' recordings, I'd go for a 4 track cassette, such as the Tascam 246, maybe a newer 424 and, of course, there's the 688...

Yeah, I know it's cassette but anything other would be just a pain to log around town.

Now, if you don't wanna go cassette [and something tells me you won't], then go for a digital multi-tracker.

--

 

[cjacek]

I don't really want to go the cassette route because (I know it's not professional cassette but) my first record experience was with a cassette recorder and the noise bugs the hell out of me and you can't really get the same warmth you get from tape (as far as I can tell) which is basically the only reason (besides the gear lust) that I would want a reel to reel set up.

Yes, cassette decks can sound terrible, compounded by bad maintenance BUT have you ever recorded or heard something off of a legacy TASCAM 4 - 8 track cassette recorder? You'd be surprised.

I, honestly, would recommend you pickup a nice 244 or 246 and maybe a 688, for an all in one solution. No noise, fantastic recordings. Stay clear of shipping though.

Check out this page which includes 244, 246 and 424 productions. All pure recordings, without any effects etc.... to give you an idea of the sonic capabilities of each unit. There are about 9 pages and 200 songs.
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_music.cfm?bandID=312544

--

 

[sweetbeats]

Ok now, at this point I'm still leaning towards one of the Tascam DA line of recorders just for the fact that it'll a) be more portable b) be cheaper and c) not be a computer.

I'm just baffled as to why you would want to go with one of the DA series recorders...You're talking about the rack-mount tape-based 8-track digital multitrackers right?

Its the worst of both worlds IMHO...

The mechanical maladies of analog tape transports, and the legacy converters that are partly responsible for the bad rap of digital (harsh/cold/grainy). If you go digital, I'd recommend you stay away from the tape-based units and go with an all-in-one units from Tascam/Yamaha/Zoom/Korg/etc...no computer, highly portable and self contained whether you're taking it to the show or to the basement/garage.

But feel free to prove me wrong sweetbeats I'd love to hear the recordings.

Not lookin' to prove anything...I've nothing to prove, but I'll put a couple samples up later...keep in mind it is white-boy reggae from the early 90's...and it was recorded in the basement. Love the egg-carton sound-diffusors.

 

[ampeg52]

After listening to some of those songs recorded on cassette on Soundclick the Tascam 688 is looking like a very enticing option. Honestly sweetbeats the only reason I've really looked at the Tascam DA line is the portability, cheap cost of the hi8 tapes, and that no one in my area sells this kind of stuff and they sell for decent prices on ebay fairly often. Given the maintenance needed with reel to reel recorders and the price of tape the Tascam 688 looks great since it has the amount of tracks I need, cassette tapes aren't expensive and if it sounds as good as the lower track count recorders that guy on Soundclick has used then it has great sound quality so right now that's what I'm mainly looking at.

 

[sweetbeats]

Ampeg52,

Keep in mind that some of that the stuff you hear on soundclick, Dave's stuff, that uses the 244/246/424 have half the track count (4) but double the track width...= better fidelity potential. Check out the stuff in particular that was done on the 488...that unit has the same mechanical transport as the 688.

Also, keep in mind that it is a real art to get those results. Not saying that you can't or haven't done that, but cjacek is right to link his site because it does show the potential of those cassette-based units. I was seriously shocked when I heard some of the stuff he has done with a 246 and just piano and vocal...so the potential is there, but mic selection and placement are key, and of course the performance...no recorder can take care of that stuff. And he keeps it simple.

The 688 is a way-cool unit as far as cassette goes. The mixer section is quite flexible. The 688 beats the pants off of a 488 in that arena.

the only reason I've really looked at the Tascam DA line is the portability, cheap cost of the hi8 tapes, and ...

Well, you've got one guy's opinion on the DA line. They're not all bad at all but some of the models are so prone to mechanical issues...ask yourself why they go for so cheap on eBay...and portability? You'll still need an external mixer. And maintenance? I think the transports can be more finicky in those tape-based digital units in some ways than open-reel analog units and you've still got to keep the tape path clean and all that.

 

[DAS19]

I doubt what you like from those old recordings is the tape saturation and compression. Its probably more of the live feel and old classic tube equipment. Im sure maybe some of it is the tape but youll be able to accomplish a nice sound if you just work harder.

 

[cjacek]

I doubt what you like from those old recordings is the tape saturation and compression. Its probably more of the live feel and old classic tube equipment. Im sure maybe some of it is the tape but youll be able to accomplish a nice sound if you just work harder.

Yeah, notice too that tape was used extensively in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's and all 4 decades sound way different, despite the fact that all was recorded on a tape machine, using oxide.

While tape does bring a character to the recordings, it is indeed the way it was recorded, by whom and where that matters, IMHO.

I've heard atrocious stuff recorded onto tape, something resembling one of those digitally harsh, over-processed so called 'hits' of today but then again I've heard stuff made on digital which sounded akin to an old 50's recording, more or less.... and vice versa.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I love tape and tape machines and would never switch to digital but tape, you see, is not really the magic some people make it out to be. Well, I think it is but not along the lines of a 'magic bullet', if you catch my drift. The 'other' stuff is more important.

--