Less is more?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Victory Pete
  • Start date Start date
Victory Pete

Victory Pete

Banned
I have several different Tascam machines,4 TSR-8's,an MS-16, and an MSR-24. I have found that I end up with the best music on the TSR-8. It seems the less tracks we depend on the better the music comes out. I have had the MSR-24 for 15 years and have some music on it that can sound boring and overproduced. Lately I have been using a TSR-8 for all of our jams and I am always surprised how great they come out. I have all this gear and it is ironic I use 8-track so much.
VP
 
I am the same way. I got rid of my 16 track and If I can get away with it I use a 4 track and if I cant I use my 8. For me the limitations of just 8 tracks keeps things simple and that seems to always work best.
 
Agreed, I've found 8 tracks to be just about the perfect amount to keep my recordings focused but give me enough room to to throw some tricks into the mix here and there. Even though I love the sound of my 4, I generally make a mess of things bouncing... getting better at it though.
 
I used to dream of being able to mic each drum when all I had was a consumer stereo cassette deck and two mics...I recently recorded some improvised grooves on a stripped down kit and I did it with two cheap dynamic mics for overheads and a middle of the road kick mic all haphazardly placed and it is some of my favorite drum recording sound-wise. When I listen back to that old cassette stuff it too sounds very good. There is a real art to mic placement on a kit if you are using a lot of mics because there are complex phase distortion issues. I'm resigned to the fact that I'm not that smart and don't have the time to work all that stuff out. I was very happy with recent tracking I did for a demo project. I did double-mic the kick but ended up only mixing one of the mics in, and I did individually mic the two toms but I was very selective about what I utilized from those tracks and it was just for some bite in the attack...everything else came from the overheads which I placed while my assistant (my 4 year old rocker) played the kit and I just listened around. Less is indeed more and it is one of the main reasons I like working with analog better than digital because there aren't any bells and whistles to really speak of compared to the digital domain and the work gets focused where it should...
 
Same here and I think it also helps to keep overdubs to a minimum, record live whenever possible and use the least amount of tracks, mics and tweaking.. It also helps to be a better musician and this is something I'd rather work on than spend hours / days on mixes but that's just me. ;)
 
sweetbeats said:
I used to dream of being able to mic each drum when all I had was a consumer stereo cassette deck and two mics...
Click to expand...

Yeah... now that sounds more like punishment! :)

I've spent a bit of time over the years trying out different mike positions around my drum kit and then really listening to what gets recorded, and I've pretty much found that one ribbon mike overhead and a second one down low and out front of the kick is all that it takes to get a pretty decent sound. I'd just use the overhead, but the sound of the kick there is weak. The mike out front gets the kick and the ribbon mike's figure-8 pattern can pretty much leave out the rest if it is up about two feet and angled a bit down so that the null plane goes through most of the rest of the kit (or at least the cymbals).

The value of operating within limitations and focusing on craft, musicianship and arrangement is one of the advantages of analog that doesn't have anything to do with sonics but does relate to musical values. Of course, the same could be said of one of the old digital 8-track tape machines like the original ADAT or DA-38/DA-88, just with worse sonics.

Cheers,

Otto
 
One of my favorite records, the first Beat Happening album, was recorded with one Neumann microphone and a TASCAM 4-track open reel deck in 1984/1985.

Less is always better :)

I personally would love to have a MS-16, but I'm afraid that I'd start "overproducing" my recordings, too, as you mentioned. Thankfully, because of my weird production style (weird music needs weird production), I can theoretically have up to 32 tracks if I do four eight-track => 2tr => eight track bounces. That's probably too much of a mixing challenge for me right now ("Anticipatory mixing" is what I call it, when you decide how to do the bounce mix) but the option is there.
 
I'm undecided. I want a 24 track 2 inch machine plus my 38
 
Here's the little rig I'm going to use for our next all analog project. It'll be a solo album by an old friend singing old timey blues tunes along with his resonator. Things like Bourgeoise Blues, Stag-O-Lee, Death Letter Blues and all that.

Mono Nagra running 7 1/2 ips for a bit of grit, a couple of ribbon mikes into the Nagra's two channel gain only mixer and a pair of headphones for me and that's the lot.

We'll probably just do it in the lounge room in a day. If Skip James could get down 18, we should be able to do ten. :)
 

Attachments

  • CIMG2094small.webp
    CIMG2094small.webp
    52.1 KB · Views: 69
jedblue said:
Here's the little rig I'm going to use for our next all analog project. It'll be a solo album by an old friend singing old timey blues tunes along with his resonator. Things like Bourgeoise Blues, Stag-O-Lee, Death Letter Blues and all that.

Mono Nagra running 7 1/2 ips for a bit of grit, a couple of ribbon mikes into the Nagra's two channel gain only mixer and a pair of headphones for me and that's the lot.

We'll probably just do it in the lounge room in a day. If Skip James could get down 18, we should be able to do ten. :)
Click to expand...

Nice reel! It's cool.
 
Has anyone ever tried linking 2 24 tracks, more is less you know. But 48 trax of lucious tape yummm.
 
Its been done plenty. Otari had a 2" 32-track...MCI was experiementing with a 3" 32-track. More sucks. :D

I was thinking about this sometime in the last 24 hours...how there are lots of things on even our beloved analog dinosaurs that were designed and implemented to make things faster. I'm seeing it like I see digital production tools. Stay with me...digital took over in the professional production world not necessarily because it sounded better, but because it opened the door to vast time savings and editing power...cut, paste, copy, random access. It also came at a time when the analog tape industry was dealing with a terrible problem with the advent of the binder breakdown issue. So people ran to it. If I had been in professional audio production at the time I would have too, but I know I would have lamented making those decisions to put bread on the table. My point is this: digital took over (in part) because, in general, it was faster and cheaper. That was the driving force. It was a business issue, not a matter of art.

In some ways increased track count on analog machines was for the purpose of feeding the same appetite...more tracks meant being able to isolate sources to fix them later in post, or to be able to track sources independently to meet conflicting schedules with the talent...those kinds of things. Now, this ended up opening the door to a new sound that we hear any time we listen to the plethora of hits from the late 60's and on, so it did drive the art to new areas. I'm not saying more is bad...I'm making my own personal statement of why it is not what I like which is hopefully in line with the intent of the OP.

Let's take a look at other features that were demanded and popular on analog recording equipment not for the purpose of improving the *sound* but to make production faster, cheaper and more convenient...things like RTZ, search-to-cue and other expanded autolocator tools, spot erase, auto-monitor switching to ease punch-ins...NONE of these made for better recordings. Some will argue that advancements in applied technology that made punch-ins easier makes for better recordings but I don't see that as any different than photoshopping a picture. I've certainly seen many amazing photographic ideas and enhancements using digital graphics editors okay? But I STILL get much more out of stuff Ansel Adams captured with his camera, and in kind I am more inspired by Les Paul's multitrack projects that sound incredible that were done on a mono deck using the only multitrack methodology he had at the time: suicide overdubs! :eek:

Maybe you like more...maybe you like less...I think a 2" headstack is a beautiful looking thing and obviously you all know I like big stuff with my Ampex MM-1000, but I also know I'm not ready to make good use of more than 8 tracks. Its well documented that human babies' neurological development is benefitted when they learn to crawl before they learn to walk. When given more than 8 tracks I tend to fill them up rather than focusing on what can be done within the limitations. That's walking before I can crawl. I should not be looking to increase track capacity until I have needs for more tracks...creative ideas that call for more tracks. I used to think 8 tracks was a real limit as a drummer because I wanted every drum mic'ed and every mic on a separate track. Now I'm working on getting a good drum sound onto 2 tracks.

Back to the punch-in issue for a moment...one of the most frequent questions I get asked when corresponding with other Ampex MM-1000 owners/enthusiasts is whether or not my MM-1000 is an "early" version or a "late" version. Seems that in general the late versions are preferred because they feature auto-input switching (i.e. a record-armed track will automatically switch to the appropriate source head when the transport is switched from playback to record...this is handy for punch-ins). This is a feature that is taken for granted with more "modern" machines, but the "early" versions of the MM-1000's do not have this feature and you kind of need three hands to do a gapless punch-in on an earlier machine. Sometimes I get the response like "oh that's too bad" when I indicate I've got an earlier machine but I really don't care. I don't enjoy punch-ins. I rarely do them. I much prefer doing 10 takes to get what I want over 3 takes and punching in to correct something. But that takes more time. :rolleyes: If I'm working with an artist that insists on that type of repair then maybe I'd use the digital rig for that artist, but I have the good fortune of NOT having to depend on recording for my income and therefore I have more freedom to chose a methodology and ideology for recording that fits me.
 
jedblue said:
Here's the little rig I'm going to use for our next all analog project. It'll be a solo album by an old friend singing old timey blues tunes along with his resonator. Things like Bourgeoise Blues, Stag-O-Lee, Death Letter Blues and all that.

Mono Nagra running 7 1/2 ips for a bit of grit, a couple of ribbon mikes into the Nagra's two channel gain only mixer and a pair of headphones for me and that's the lot.

We'll probably just do it in the lounge room in a day. If Skip James could get down 18, we should be able to do ten. :)
Click to expand...


Nice. I want to hear it when you finish it. I'm wanting to get a good ribbon mic at some point.
 
TheChikenMaster said:
Has anyone ever tried linking 2 24 tracks, more is less you know. But 48 trax of lucious tape yummm.
Click to expand...

War of the Worlds was done that way in 1978. I believe the record was 5 synced 24-track machines on one of Scritti Politti's albums.
Personally, I'd like to work on 2" 16-track. 24 is too many but 8 isn't quite enough for everything I want to do (hence for many songs nowadays I'm locking up two TSRs)
 
While I enjoyed my old 4-track days...I found that even for some basic music I ended up having to bounce at least once.

I record to a 16-track...but then dump-to-DAW.
While the 16 track is "almost" enough...I find that I usually end up with about 24 tracks after I figure in the split/doubled-tracks or just being able to break up some existing tracks in order to better manage/control them for mixdowns.

I've been following the 24-2" machines on eBay, and if one within pick-up distance comes up that is in great shape for a good price...I might go for it.
With 24 tape tracks I would have the room for doubling and FX and whatnot...and at the same time, it would GET ME OFF THE DAW!!! :D
I mean...I'm not complaining about *digital*...it's sounding pretty good for me now...
...but the damn DAW is just too addictive with its editing capabilities! And being a rather anal (and possibly a little OCD) type of person ;) I can very easily get caught up in tiny details.
The 24 track tape deck would force me back to the old ways again...because I'm already at a point where during tracking I find myself at times thinking It's OK, I can fix that later when I edit.
I mean...there's nothing really wrong with that, and I think a lot of guys back in the old days would have KILLED for the DAW editing at times...
...but I want to bang some stuff out a bit quicker, and I just don't have the self-control to avoid the "DAW fix"...I thnk I'm becoming an edit junkie! :p

Kidding aside though…there IS a certain freedom with using only tape…just as there are some limitations.
I am planning at some point to record some “sparse” type of Rock…so I may try and squeeze it all out on my 16-track, which shouldn’t be a problem…and forgo the dump-to-DAW which I need when doing a bit of more involved production.

But YES…there is certainly a plain-n-simple beauty to just recording with a few tracks. It tends to really open up the mix, as long as you can get the right balance you need with the limited tracks. Just takes a bit more work.
 
miroslav said:
While I enjoyed my old 4-track days...I found that even for some basic music I ended up having to bounce at least once.

I record to a 16-track...but then dump-to-DAW.
While the 16 track is "almost" enough...I find that I usually end up with about 24 tracks after I figure in the split/doubled-tracks or just being able to break up some existing tracks in order to better manage/control them for mixdowns.

I've been following the 24-2" machines on eBay, and if one within pick-up distance comes up that is in great shape for a good price...I might go for it.
With 24 tape tracks I would have the room for doubling and FX and whatnot...and at the same time, it would GET ME OFF THE DAW!!! :D
I mean...I'm not complaining about *digital*...it's sounding pretty good for me now...
...but the damn DAW is just too addictive with its editing capabilities! And being a rather anal (and possibly a little OCD) type of person ;) I can very easily get caught up in tiny details.
The 24 track tape deck would force me back to the old ways again...because I'm already at a point where during tracking I find myself at times thinking It's OK, I can fix that later when I edit.
I mean...there's nothing really wrong with that, and I think a lot of guys back in the old days would have KILLED for the DAW editing at times...
...but I want to bang some stuff out a bit quicker, and I just don't have the self-control to avoid the "DAW fix"...I thnk I'm becoming an edit junkie! :p

Kidding aside though…there IS a certain freedom with using only tape…just as there are some limitations.
I am planning at some point to record some “sparse” type of Rock…so I may try and squeeze it all out on my 16-track, which shouldn’t be a problem…and forgo the dump-to-DAW which I need when doing a bit of more involved production.

But YES…there is certainly a plain-n-simple beauty to just recording with a few tracks. It tends to really open up the mix, as long as you can get the right balance you need with the limited tracks. Just takes a bit more work.
Click to expand...

I find the perfect number of tracks for a big project is 20. I seem to fill up my 1" 16 track too fast and I never use all 24 on my 1" 24. I have been looking for a local 2" 24 myself, it is inevitable I will grab one. There was an MCI locally last summer but I couldnt afford it so I decided to just forget about 2" for a while, a long while. I have enough machines as it is. Also I just realized I couldnt fit a 2" machine through my custom made control room door!
VP
 
Yeah...I seem to hit the 20-track count a lot too! :D

24 tracks just works out well for me, as I mix OTB rather than in the DAW...and my console is 24 channels (it also has 24 monitor channels, but I only use them when really needed).
And even when I'm in the DAW...I have 24 A/D/A channels...so I can come out of the DAW and to the console without having to submix internally.
Each track goes to its own D/A output...and to its own console channel. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top