High Fidelity Specialist Studio

R

Robertobly

New member
Hello I'm hoping you can help me with a few questions as me and a few pals are planning on setting up our own studio & would like to be able to record at near highest fidelity possible as we're after a real, professional and classic sound e.g. Early Dylan/Nick Drake. Here goes...

1) Using a 2 track tape recorder to record not only a solo singer/songwriter but also a small band:

Now though I understand recording live to 2-track is quite possible via the stereo out of a mixer (by using a load of mics to pick everything up), i'd prefer to have more control over the tracks so my idea is to:-

Step1 - Record drums via 2-4 mics through a mixer into the 2 track recorder before sending to a DAW via a 2 channel high-end AD converter.
Step2 - Record bass/guitar, whilst monitoring the drum track(s) before sending it to DAW via AD & syncing up with drums
Step3 - Then record vocals, whilst monitoring the rest & syncing up accordingly
(repeating the process for any lead instruments we fancy lobbing on)

Now are there any technical problems that anyone can envisage with doing things this way other than the obvious laboriousness of recording everything separately? Could recording this way immediately reduce the 'realness'(for want of a better term)/quality/fidelity that I'm looking for? Is there something I'm fundamentally missing that would serve to completely undermine this process?

2) Fidelity:
Secondly, could someone please describe to me what is the fidelity gulf between a 1/2" 4-track, which in theory is 1/8" per track & 1/2" 2-track/1" 4-track, which in theory is 1/4" per track? Would you go as far as to say that it's the difference between very high quality recordings & semiprofessional for instance? At present I neither own or know of any specific recordings that used each of these set ups so at present I'm completely in the dark to whether one is really any better than the other. Any help/comments appreciated on this...

Similarly, is the difference between 15 & 30ips equally noticeable? I know some people who favour 15 and others 30 and without hearing recordings, I'm ignorant to the difference. I've read that only classical or more acoustic recordings really require 30 ips but obviously I'm not going to purchase a machine on mere hearsay so need to know. Should a machine running at 7 1/2ips even be a consideration?

3) Mastering:
Thirdly, with regards to mastering, I've thought of a few ways that it could be done and I would value some other folks' opinions as to the benefits and drawbacks of each.

My first idea was to record to tape and then mix/master on comp to cd/mp3. This seems the easiest (& at this moment the most preferred) method but i'm worried that the clarity and 'tapyness' of the original recording will be lost if I don't choose to master on a 2-track stereo tape machine beforehand?

Also after mastering on the computer, is there a way that from this I could transfer the recording onto vinyl if so desired at a later stage (if there was demand for it to be listened to this way)? I appreciate that if going vinyl, keeping the whole thing analogue would be the most beneficial thing but rather than necessity, releasing vinyl will be more of a luxury as unfortunately, most listen to mp3s/cds so we know we're going to have to compromise in order to reach folk with the music.

Perhaps it would be better to record to tape before mixing it on the computer and then sending it back out to be mastered on a stereo tape machine? I simply have no idea about this and again would sincerely appreciate any advice/opinion. I appreciate this may sound a little ludicrous as you may think why not just master to tape in the first place but we can't afford/get hold of/maintain a large multi-track recorder and we are exploring ways in which we could still keep control of as many individual tracks as possible without compromising the fidelity of the recording- as to sound professional & clear as originally stated.

I hope this description of my predicament is not too jumbled and that someone out there is able to offer me some sound and informed advice.

Kind regards,

Robert Blythin
 
my first question would be why you want to track to 1/2 track. I mean, there are plenty of machines that can get you great results while letting you track the whole band on one tape. I'm not that experienced with all the different decks and all the technical differences but you should be able to get really good results with a 1" 16 track machine. Anything wider will be increadibly expensive, but they do have 2" 16 track machines too. If you really want to keep the analog thing going, I would mix to tape as well then transfer to digital OR vinyl. I can't really answer any of your questions, but I'm just curious why you want to do it that way.
 
whats your budget?

I think a nice one inch 8 track would be real nice ,its kind of a compromise, you have plenty of track width and the luxury of more control in the final mix. the hole 2 track thing is kind of tough; if your recording the band live( the more people playing at the same time the greater chance a mistake is made) so that can turn into" OKAY BOY'S LET'S DO IT AGAIN ..TAKE #12" lol... i guess it depend's on how good your band mates are and how loose or tight a recording your looking for. Also what's your budget? If you want quality well you pay for what you get . right? Hopefully some of the other guy's on this forum will address your more specific questions. good luck
 
Man (this is just my hardly expert opinion and a bit of recent and past experience), but we do some of this stuff to a ridiculous analog extent. But that's just the way we are - it's an ideology as much as anything else. Live to two track 1/4" @ 15ips via a bunch of vintage gear - Studer, Revox, Otari, Neumann, AKG, EV, Senneheiser et al. It is time consuming in setup, performance and equipment maintenance and expensive everywhere.

Did I say expensive? Yep, expensive. You inevitably end up with multiple takes on expensive reel tape stock and you have to keep all that vintage gear running. You soon find yourself needing to learn the black arts of tape machine setting up, electronics, tape splicing and all manner of other interesting things.

Because we go live to two track, if anyone in the band makes an audible mistake then you're up with the choice of doing it again or accepting it, or physically splicing together bits of multiple performances - with all the skill that that kind of thing takes.

We don't do that, we just record it again.

If you multitrack it then you can lay beds, do overdubs and drop ins and all that good stuff that is even easier in the digital domain. To me an eight track tape machine creates a certain vibe that is quite noticible - like early White Stripes or even that first Eurythmics album. I particularly like it, especially for guitar band music, it really makes you think about sub grouping and track assignment. A three piece guitar band to a 1" eight track is heaven to me. When you get up into sixteen tracks you're getting into much higher production value capabilties and then you end up at the commercial standard for many years - twenty four track 2". A twenty four track 2" machine is 1/12" per track, a sixteen track 2" is 1/8" and an eight track 1" is the same. Some have the opinion that the 2" 16 track is the bees knees for tape based recording. There are plenty of folk on this forum well experienced in all those formats.

We use tape because we want tape saturation and compression and that 'tape thing' and, because it is a free form performance band, it can go live to two track. Multitracking doesn't really offer any real advantages to us asides more ability to vary the mix after the event.

We find that the tape thing happens easily on the 1/4" two track machine (1/8" track width @ 15ips). In my earlier years of 1/2" eight and sixteen track machines ownership and operation I don't recall ever hearing it to the extent that it happens on that 1/4" machine. I figure it has to do with track width - 1/12" or greater per track will get you there. So 1/4" two track, 1" eight, 2" sixteen or twenty four. Then the tape stock gets expensive - very expensive.

And because we're after compression and saturation then it's not super duper hi fidelity. It can't be because the saturation and compression happens as a result of tape distortion. It's just that some people (like us) find that musical.

If my goal was absolute hi-fidelity with a lot of editing ability then I'd probably be looking at high sample rate multitrack digital conversion 24/96 minimum storage and manipulation (or even 192 or 384 - disk is cheap these days) and spend good money on the signal chain - mikes, preamps, compressors and the like. And don't forget the room(s) where it is being recorded in. That probably has as much influence as anything else.

So, if I was to go to multitrack analog for my needs (and I'm looking into it now - but not wholy convinced of its necessity), then it'd be eight track 1", mixed and mastered to 1/4" two track, all at 15ips. And that's because I like the eight track format and I can handle the cost of 1" tape. 2" is beyond my equipment, production value and tape cost desire - either sixteen or twenty four track.

The 1" sixteen track suggestion that Nate made is a good one. A 1/2" eight track is similar with less tracks. There's lots of folk here with those machines and they come up for sale pretty regularly. 1" eights and 2" sixteens are much rarer in my experience.

But I'd still be asking (and further researching) that first fundamental question; "why tape versus high bit / sample rate digital?"

And if the answer is still 'tape', then "just what parts of the performance will benefit from what tape does and what is indifferent?" Then you can get a handle on how many analog tracks you'll need and go looking.

You'll still need the rest of tha audio chain thought ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$).

Dunno if this helps or hinders.

Jed
 
Last edited:
Consider getting a good Ribbon mic. I've been wanting to try one of these myself. Dylan recordings are not "clean" sounding but the ambiance is great. Like that hit on the snare that starts off "Like a Rolling Stone"
 
After reading the title of the forum, i really would have recommended a more digital based studio like some have suggested. I mean high fidelity is a very expensive word when it comes to analog gear and if your on a budget you would get a much more high fidelity sound from a digital based studio of the same price. I know this is a big call for most but this fidelity talk popped up in another thread recently... fidelity is basically how similar your recording sounds upon playback as the original source material sounded live. That's the 'physics' definition and i firmly believe that digital is much much higher fidelity than analog when it comes to budget gear, i have had recording setups where i have recorded a live show simultaneously on a outboard digital recorder and an 8 track reel to reel, just feeding out from the mixer outputs into the inputs of both recorders. The digital recording sounds more like it did when you are listening to the band live but the recording on tape sounds way better musically (i prefer the sound of analog recordings to digital, hence why i am a part of this forum and rarely use my digital recorder any more).

The reason why i mentioned all this is because you are saying you want a high fidelity recording that sounds like early Bob Dylan so that's why you want analog. In my world that is a bit confusing, because to me, if a recording has lots of 'tape effect' then to me that's lower fidelity than the exact same recording which has no tape effect because obviously that tape effect wasn't present when the band was playing the song live in the studio.

My recommendation? if your trying to open up a business with this studio, spend the bulk of your money on valve mic pre's, ribbon mics and that sort of vintage sounding stuff and use DAW running through a nice analog mixer to capture your sound but also have a nice 1/4" 2 track since they aren't too expensive or cost too much to maintain.. also because people who want more 'analog' and want to have more 'tape effect' have that option available.

If this studio is more for personal use, get an 8 track or 16 track reel to reel, if you are just starting out or only have been in the recording business for a couple of years and don't really have or cant afford any fancy mic's or mic pre's.. i would just get a 1/2" 8 track... if you are after Dylan sound and your not a professional engineer, a 1/2" 8 track will last you a very long time before your musical ear and skill as a musician and engineer are more than 1/2" tape can capture. If you or your band are in the zone, sounding good, feeding magic onto the tape when your recording in the studio, when you play that tape back, it will reproduce the magic... just like it did for many great bands.
 
The most ideal, practical set up for me would be 1" 8 track. As Jedblue said above. I don't think it gets a whole lot better or at least even needs to get a whole lot better than that. Digital OR analog. Think Band on the Run and a whole slew of other classic recordings.
 
Robert, et al

AHHH... Okay, I have trivia questions:

1. What 2-track recorder is shown on the Album Cover of "The Basement Tapes", Bob Dylan and "the Band"?

2. Was that recorder actually used by those guys for the album?

Rich Smith
 
Howdy,
1. Not sure, portable solid state Ampex maybe?
2. A few sources on internet claim a Uher, used with Altec tube PA mixers & Neumann's (all left from the 1966 world tour)
Regards,
Rob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top