Looking for that extra PHAT sound...?

  • Thread starter Thread starter miroslav
  • Start date Start date
miroslav

miroslav

Cosmic Cowboy
Before you look further...grab a towel to wipe the drool off your keyboard. ;)


Custom Studer 2" 8-Track


!BYh!Zh!BWk~$(KGrHgoH-EEEjlLlyg1NBKiCZRToQg~~_12.JPG



http://cgi.ebay.com/Studer-A800-8-track-2-the-best-tape-format-Ampex_W0QQitemZ200374067668QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item2ea739a1d4&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

BIN price - only $17,000...this one won't last long! ;) :D
 
amazing

that must sound mint. 1/4 inch per track. The beatles used the 4 track 1 inch studer. Thanks for the pic.
 
Cool! But a bit pricey and rather too big for my humble studio!

I've accepted the inevitable (I need a good machine with at least 8 tracks) and will be buying another multi-track machine soon, now that the M-23 2-track is nearly healed. It will either be a 1" 8-track or a compact 2" 16-track. Depends on whether I do the sensible thing, or the crazy thing. :)

Cheers,

Otto
 
cool machine. :cool:
a lot of metal there :p

Also, track width on tape does not relate to amount of "phat" in the sound, not to mention that "phat sound" is a rather meaningless combination of words to begin with. Nevertheless people use that combination all the time and when ever they do so, they really do mean to say something, keeping the plot of that "something" open only to themselves.
:D
 
Dr ZEE said:
cool machine. :cool:
a lot of metal there :p

Also, track width on tape does not relate to amount of "phat" in the sound...
Click to expand...


Wadda you mean...?

1/4" per track is "phater" than 1/8" per track! ;) :D
 
Make sure your "phat" is in phase or your phantasies will be phantoms.
 
My Nagra is a full track 1/4" therefore must be physically phatter than my two track Revox. Twice as phat as Dr Zee has so correctly pointed out. But my Revox sounds phatter than my physically phatter Nagra.

What is wrong with my phatness then? Are there some factors of phatness that I'm missing? Could my phatness (or lack of) have more to do with something else?

:o

Uh oh.....

dennysburgerjustinkredible.jpg
 
Well that settles it...that is a really phat burger...

Certainly though you bring up a phormidable scenario to consider...physical phatness is not the whole picture as evidenced by your experience with your Nagra vs. your Revox.
 
I guess phor some, phat sound can mean a bigger low end...
...and phor others it can mean a "bigger" sound..."wider-n-richer" sounding across the entire phrequency spectrum and with more dynamic range.

Phor me, it's more of the second.

It's just gotta be phatter...look at the size of that thing...it has a bigger phootprint than some home studios do! :D

;)
 
sweetbeats said:
Well that settles it...that is a really phat burger...

Certainly though you bring up a phormidable scenario to consider...physical phatness is not the whole picture as evidenced by your experience with your Nagra vs. your Revox.
Click to expand...

One might be tempted to say that recorders with tube electronics or discrete transistors with high voltage supply rails, and recorders with transformered I/O sound "phatter" than ones that don't. Some people seem to prefer the old tube Studers or old tube Ampexes or prefer early transformered MCIs over later ones or Otari MTR-90 mark I machines over the later, more reliable machines or Studer A-800s over the slicker A-827s or prefer the discrete electronics of the 3M M-23 over the ICs that abound in an M-79.

But then, the Stephens recorders have the reputation as the phattest sounding recorders, and they have no tubes, weird little plug-in opamps Stephens designed himself and unbalanced audio with no transformers, so I don't think you can make those generalizations. It's probably best just to be awed by the 1/4" track width, admit our unworthiness and call it a day! :)

Cheers,

Otto
 
- Filaments provide warmth.
- Silicon provides punch.
- Heavy metal cores, massive coils and thick wide tape provide a lot of phat.

Load your racks and trolleys today! Get all the above, gentlemen!

:D
 

Attachments

  • load_it].webp
    load_it].webp
    31.8 KB · Views: 48
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top