SteveM
New member
double post
Last edited:
SteveM
New member
Cool! I can't wait to hear the Henson track. Let me know when you post it.
I'll have to see how the bouncing goes on mine when I get my capstan back.
I need to send the reel idler to him too. It has wear lines , like where it would have had 1/4" tape running on it. That's not good I guess and was probably part of the problem I've had with it slowing down. I have two reel idlers and they both have the same thing. One worse than the other.
lonewhitefly
Active member
i will post a link to this thread when it's out!
I can't remember which model 440 you have ... does playing back on the sync head sound really different?
On my Scully, the sync head response is not very good, so it chops off a lot of highs & lows but has a very cool mid-range bite. So i use this to my advantage. I will bounce the main rhythm track on the play head, then some other elements from the sync head ...
SteveM
New member
I have 440a electronics with a 440b transport. The sync head is a bit noisier. I don't know if I'd use it for mixes. but it doesn't sound bad. It's got it's own vol knob in the back of the electronics. It might have a bias thing there too.
lonewhitefly
Active member
i see. probably similar sounding to the Scully sync head since it's an early 440. I think the 440As were made '67-'68. i've found the sync head works well for bouncing things like fuzz bass or something soft-sounding that could use more honk.
Some of the Tommy James hits (like "I Think We're Alone Now") had lots of bouncing going on, some sounds likes it's coming from the sync head (Scully).
SteveM
New member
It's easy to forget your even listening on sync mode sometimes, but a b you can hear the difference. That "Court of the Crimson King" done on a 440-8 had a ton of bounces too and it sounds pretty darn good.
A
analog_freak
New member
I'm still getting satisfying results with the Tascam 424 MkIII, 488 MkII, and (for direct-to-2-track live jazz) 122 Mk III. Of course, a little Alesis digital reverb is helpful, as is digital delay/looper for solo bass pieces. Since what I do is mostly jazz, rather than rock/pop with vocals, it works well. Every time I consider making the switch to digital portastudios (Zoom, Boss, etc.) or computer-based recording, and spend a few minutes looking at operation manuals, I conclude that it's a better use of my time to make music with what I have than to take the time to learn the digital stuff.
I also think that computer-based recording is almost a genre of music in and of itself (with sub-genres, of course). When recording to tape, you focus more on the performance. With computer, it's so often "pieced together." Too much of the music out there today has so much obvious editing that sucks the life out of it.
I will divulge that when I do remote recordings, I don't really want to take my analog equipment out of the studio, so I use a Tascam MD recorder mounted in a rack case for those events. The results are pretty good.
Everything is mixed to HHB CD burner.
I also think that computer-based recording is almost a genre of music in and of itself (with sub-genres, of course). When recording to tape, you focus more on the performance. With computer, it's so often "pieced together." Too much of the music out there today has so much obvious editing that sucks the life out of it.
I will divulge that when I do remote recordings, I don't really want to take my analog equipment out of the studio, so I use a Tascam MD recorder mounted in a rack case for those events. The results are pretty good.
Everything is mixed to HHB CD burner.
B
Beck
Guest
Yes and no. It can be as far as recording format and console, depending on the project, but I have a nice DAW too. Unlike some I don't do editing in the digital realm because IMO that's where most of the damage is done. I use my DAW more like an ADAT... a simple 8-tracks in and 8-tracks out and sync it to my reel-to-reel via SMPTE/MTC. I don't like to mix ITB. I don't like plugs either. The vintage outboard processors I own from companies like Lexicon are far superior to their plug-ins. The only plugs and programs I use with my recording software are things like mp3 converters and CD Architect. Other than that my studio PC is full of other programs like editors and librarians for MIDI synths and processors.
I have both analog and digital outboard processors. I prefer analog for chorusing and echo. One thing digital does well is reverb. I've been creating spaces with digital reverb since about 1982 and later in my own home studio since about 1986 when I bought a new Yamaha SPX-90.
I have both analog and digital synths. I prefer analog pedals and comps for guitar. I have all kinds of stuff from vintage MXR, Boss and Ibanez boxes to vintage Scholz Rockman and Rock Modules.
Analog for me is about tape and mixing, including levels, panning and EQ done in analog at the console. I will use whatever works. If I don't like what something does to the sound I don't use it. I have many tools and features available in my DAW that I don’t care for so they go unused.
I normally mixdown to 1/4" half-track reel-to-reel and from there usually to HHB CDR-850 CD recorder, but may also use my DAW interface and CD Architect for the final product.
Many things I use I built myself. Either something didn’t exist so I invented it and/or I could build a better something or other than I could buy and for less at the time. I’ve modded about half of what I own in some way as well, including the motherboard in my DAW. Most things can be tweaked to do better than factory spec or just to sound different in a way I prefer.
Jim Rosebrook
It's All Good....
I agree with you that this is the common distinction... BUT it really is an operational choice. A person can use a computer system and play by the same workflow "rules" of analog.
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
This is true, or at least it has been for me. I find what makes the real difference in workflow is not whether it's analog or digital, but the machine itself. So, with the three digital standalones I['ve] use[d], they do similar things but in different ways. And with the two analog standalones that I spent most of my recording life on, same story.
In point of fact, when I was making the transition to 'the dark side' , I specifically looked at machines that closest replicated what I'd been used to 'in the light'.
And that's what I went with.