half-inch models

  • Thread starter Thread starter FALKEN
  • Start date Start date
FALKEN said:
how did your E-16 compare to the 80-8 or the 5050?
(I have an E-16 and am thinking about getting one of those 2 to get a better quality sound; if indeed it is worth the difference).


...Didn't AKAI invent some sort of heads that don't wear out?
Click to expand...

The Fostex is right up there with the others. The decision you have to make is if you like the Dolby or the DBX. The Tascam 80-8 has an outboard DBX system that I never liked. I used it for a long time and the sound was good, but the DBX is hard to work-around.

The Otari is the best sounding of all three machines. If you can find one in great condition, get it.

The Fostex has the better Dolby NR which is transparent in my opinion.

If you can find an 80-8 system that is mint, get it. It is built better than the Otari or the Fostex.

So, for reliable, maintenance free recording = Fostex E or G16
for long-term use and decent sound = Tascam 80-8
For best sound, period = Otari MX5050Mk3 or up.

I forgot to mention that the Fostex 16 tracks have 8 more tracks!

The sound is still right up there with the 8-track 1/2" machines though. I have listened to many older recordings I did lately and totally forget what machine they were recorded on. The only machine I can identify for sure is the Otari as it has that "punchy" sound on the drums reminicent of my 2" MCI sound.
 
........."The track width on the MSR-24 is wider than the MSR-16...."

That's true since the msr24 has an entire one inch piece of tape to use. And the track width on a TSR8 is wider than the track width on an Msr16 on the given half inch piece of tape.

And in comparing one inch machines, the Tascam models ms16 (not msr) ,8516, atr60-16, etc will sound better to some folks than an msr24 because the one inch 16 track machines have a much larger track width than the msr24. And jumping up to 2", even with wider guard bands, gives a huge jump in width.
 
cjacek said:
...ARP's Love Me Do or any of the 388 tunes on Dave's site ...~Daniel :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, that! Thanx, Daniel!

I've always noted that "Love Me Do" had very crisp hifi, & I wondered if/when anyone else would notice!! The 388 is one of my favorite recording platforms, for it's relatively high fidelity & topnotch features, plus it's "all-in-oneness",... true Portastudio format design.

Thx again!! ;)
 
...

I think we all agree that the wider formats sound noticeably better than their narrow counterparts. I don't think that's ever been disputed. I've heard the differences myself, too.

What I think is more relevant, is how much is "enough" fidelity for home recording,... or for that matter,... "enough" fidelity for any project aimed at commercial viability. I think with highly skilled hands w/accompanying set of critical ears, one can bridge the gap between the lesser and wider formats,... much more than one might expect by scrutinizing the specs alone.

That's MO, & I'm standing by it. :eek:
 
I don't subscribe to the notion that if it's not 2" analog it's not worthy.

............................. :eek:
 
OK!!!!!

I think that I am approaching "home recording" slightly differently than some others here might.

Although most of what I record is for my own enjoyment, and to pass around to my friends, this not my final intent with home recording.

I want to make recordings that blow what is played on the radio right now out of the water. we all know that the most important part of any recording is the performance, and also the song. by discussing different formats, we are basically trying to eliminate any factors that might hold us back. but we have all learned the lesson that a radio-quality recording can be made on a cassette 4-track with a 57 and no compression. period. that being said; I am going to go back to two previous questions I posed:


1. didn't the stones record on a half inch 16 track? (i dont know where I heard this)

2. didn't AKAI make some heads that supposedly take forever to wear out?


and the last thing that I want to say is that I really do take this stuff seriously. the music industry is completely ass backwards. why are there relatively few acts out there, with relatively little talent, making records and videos that cost a million dollars, when there are thousands of bands out there willing to do it at a fraction of the price?

for every band that makes a million dollar album, 33 could do one for $30,000, and one hundred could make one each for $10,000. and if you take the gear out of the equation (view it as an investment outside of the band), for every band that makes a million dollar record (or video), over 300 could be recording one for around $3000 bucks.

the amount of money it takes to produce what is considered to be a "radio quality" recording is simply a barrier to entry into what is a very lucrative market for top labels with a lot of capital, and I believe that it is an illusion. my intent is to break those barriers, by out-doing the record companies at a fraction of the cost.

so, when you say "this unit should be fine for the needs of home recording"...... i dont know what that means.
 
Ok!

You get as big a format as you can afford, and the rest is talent.

;)
 
A Reel Person said:
I think we all agree that the wider formats sound noticeably better than their narrow counterparts. I don't think that's ever been disputed. I've heard the differences myself, too.

What I think is more relevant, is how much is "enough" fidelity for home recording,... or for that matter,... "enough" fidelity for any project aimed at commercial viability. I think with highly skilled hands w/accompanying set of critical ears, one can bridge the gap between the lesser and wider formats,... much more than one might expect by scrutinizing the specs alone.

That's MO, & I'm standing by it. :eek:
Click to expand...

In FULL agreement here with you, Dave.

The thing I wish to underscore, again, is that what good is a format of tape machine, track width, tape etc ... when the good 'ol CD, the format of choice for final mixes, distribution and all that, can't capture it ?

Sure, I could get a 1/2" 4 track or 1" 8 track machine and I'm sure it'd sound bigger yet than my 1/4" 4 track deck, no doubt there, but when mixed down to CD, the differences disappear. What could I do with the "wider" formats that I can't do with my "thinner" counterparts ? Why would I wanna spend tons more $$ on a format I can't translate properly to CD ?

~Daniel
 
By its very definition Analog is everything from cassette to open reel tape. Now, whether cassette sounds worse than open reel is another story. ;)

~Daniel
 
cjacek said:
The thing I wish to underscore, again, is that what good is a format of tape machine, track width, tape etc ... when the good 'ol CD, the format of choice for final mixes, distribution and all that, can't capture it ?

Sure, I could get a 1/2" 4 track or 1" 8 track machine and I'm sure it'd sound bigger yet than my 1/4" 4 track deck, no doubt there, but when mixed down to CD, the differences disappear. What could I do with the "wider" formats that I can't do with my "thinner" counterparts ? Why would I wanna spend tons more $$ on a format I can't translate properly to CD ?

~Daniel
Click to expand...



........is this true??

that doesn't seem to make any sense at all.

are you saying that mortgage payment type mics and boards won't be captured properly on CD either?

ironic. lmao.
 
FALKEN said:
........is this true??

that doesn't seem to make any sense at all.

are you saying that mortgage payment type mics and boards won't be captured properly on CD either?

ironic. lmao.
Click to expand...

Tho it is a very interesting and accepted hi-fi format, the CD will never, ever be a true representation of the original, with a few exceptions of course. Case in point would be the many classic 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's hits, all done with bad ass analog equipment, which were transferred to CD for us consumers to listen to. What you hear on cd is a "smaller" sound picture of what these recordings really sounded like on tape. Tho I like CD's, it was never the best format for music.

~Daniel
 
Didn't the advent of the DVD actually make CD sound "obsolete"-(not that cd's are going away)...?
 
Bloodbone said:
Didn't the advent of the DVD actually make CD sound "obsolete"-(not that cd's are going away)...?
Click to expand...

Yeah, DVD audio would definitely allow for a more complete sound picture than a CD, not that CD's are bad, of course. ;)

Here's some good info I've found on the web:

24/96 stands for 24-bits/96KHz. It means that the digital signal that represents the analog audio is composed of 96000 samples per second per channel and that each sample has a resolution of 24 bits. It is also called 96/24 sometimes. Compared to regular audio CD (16-bits/44.1KHz) a 24 bits sample is 65536 times more precise than that of a CD and there are more than twice as many samples. Put differently, a 16 bits CD sample can only represent a analog signal with 65536 different levels while 24 bits allow to represent that signal with over 16 Million levels. Compared to 24/96 high-resolution digital audio, a 16-bits/44.1K CD represents only 30% of the resolution. It's like the definition of the signal was cut by 2/3 leaving only 1/3 of it. Compared to 24/192, a CD holds just about 15% of that resolution. The result of 24/96 and 24/192 is a high-definition format which can represent an analog signal much more acurately that legacy CD formats. The availability of DVD format which allows to store higher amounts of data than a CD (close to 8 times more) brought 24/96 and 24/192 formats to consumer homes.​
 
acorec said:
Pro machines are pro because they are built to run 24/7 and to pile-up the hours on the heads.

The 1/2" machines are great for the home studio. I still love 'em. But they don'tlast in a pro working environment.
Click to expand...

Excellent line of reasoning... to a point.

There are many ways to rate machines. Durability and maintenance is very important. I believe mrxmkr mentioned servicing issues as well.

Keep in mind though that the definition of "working studio" is so much broader than it used to be. 24/7 is not the measure of a legitimate studio, and that's not even counting home studios.

Even though I drive my car to work every day and everywhere in between it still doesn't require the maintenance schedule of a fleet vehicle, such as a taxicab or police car. The same holds true for anything really, including recording equipment.

For this reason durability comparisons are more subjective than sound quality, which is my chief concern. Durability for my purposes and not a 24/7 operation is the only thing that matters. Parts availability is also up there on the list when I evaluate a machine.

All things considered I personally give Tascam the highest marks. I've found they hold up very well and require surprisingly little adjustment. My TSR-8 is not built like a tank but then I don't have to take it to a blacksmith when it does breakdown. ;)

-Tim
 
FALKEN said:
...Didn't AKAI invent some sort of heads that don't wear out?
Click to expand...
They had "GX Glass & Crystal Ferrite" heads in a range of domestic reel to reel and cassette decks in the 70's and early 80's. I understand that they never went beyond 1/4" 4 track domestic recorders including some 'quad' 4 channel models. I have a GX265D 4 track 2 channel reel to reel and my dad has a GXC46D cassette deck.

Cya
Andrew
 
Beck said:
Excellent line of reasoning... to a point.

There are many ways to rate machines. Durability and maintenance is very important. I believe mrxmkr mentioned servicing issues as well.

Keep in mind though that the definition of "working studio" is so much broader than it used to be. 24/7 is not the measure of a legitimate studio, and that's not even counting home studios.

Even though I drive my car to work every day and everywhere in between it still doesn't require the maintenance schedule of a fleet vehicle, such as a taxicab or police car. The same holds true for anything really, including recording equipment.

For this reason durability comparisons are more subjective than sound quality, which is my chief concern. Durability for my purposes and not a 24/7 operation is the only thing that matters. Parts availability is also up there on the list when I evaluate a machine.

All things considered I personally give Tascam the highest marks. I've found they hold up very well and require surprisingly little adjustment. My TSR-8 is not built like a tank but then I don't have to take it to a blacksmith when it does breakdown. ;)

-Tim
Click to expand...

Well, if you like the TSR-8 then you will LOVE the Fostex equivilent!

The Fostex design team left Tascam because they were at odds with Tascam on certain stupid design flaws (like those &*^%$ relays). These guys left Tascam to start Fostex. Given this Tascam line, the Fostex equiv. line is a better sounding and more reliable machine.

The 80-8 is in a whole other league and is considered a low-end professional machine (as was it's intent).
All of these machines ..........in fact ALL tape machines.........have their hassles. If it is not one thing it is another. My MCI 2" machine has its strong points and weak points in maintanance, but the comparison to any of the Fostex or Tascam machines is more than night and day. That damn MCI will outlive me, easily. This MCI was used in a pro studio (the Hit Factory) since 1983 and the latest JRF head report puts my heads in the 70% left catagory!
 
FALKEN said:
...I think that I am approaching "home recording" slightly differently than some others here might...
Click to expand...

No, you're not. The majority of people who frequent this Homerecording dot com bbs are people with the intentions of being commercial, making it, or breaking into the mainstream.

On the other hand, it's that I'm in the minority, of people who do home recording for the simple pleasure of it, alone, with no aim to break commercially into the music business.
 
A Reel Person said:
No, you're not. The majority of people who frequent this Homerecording dot com bbs are people with the intentions of being commercial, making it, or breaking into the mainstream.

On the other hand, it's that I'm in the minority, of people who do home recording for the simple pleasure of it, alone, with no aim to break commercially into the music business.
Click to expand...

there aint nothing wrong with that! the rest of us will have our revolution!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top