modern tape machines?

[mfdjuve]

I still want to upgrade from tascam 488, to a reel to reel. Only problem is that I see/read that most machines need repair or are partially not working. I have no idea where to go to fix these problems, or how I would do it myself. Many tascam 388's are showing up these days, but are always being sold 'for spare parts/not working). All these issues tape machines come with, are sadly pushing me towards an imac

Why aren't there any modern manufacturers of tape machines? Surely there's still a big market? Also I can only find one company that actually still produces tape. Seems that the analog recording world is a lot of work.

 

[jpmorris]

It's not really economical. Ebay has driven the value of the things down to the point at which it's difficult to make a case for building them. A multitrack would cost in the same ballpark as a Moog Voyager XL, if you're lucky. (EDIT: I was very tempted to get a BR-20 back when they were £1500, but finances didn't allow it until after they had stopped selling them)

For what it's worth, there are three tape manufacturers at present: RMGI, ATR and Zonal.
RMGI make tape compatible with BASF and most of the old Ampex/Quantegy formulations, ATR make their own weird formulation but it costs at least twice as much. Zonal only make 1/4" tape and they only seem to sell it in the UK.

 

[Tim Gillett]

Why aren't there any modern manufacturers of tape machines? Surely there's still a big market?

If there was still a big market, even a niche market, we can be sure there would be manufacturers stepping up to the plate to get a slice of the profits. But there arent because the market isnt there any more.

If you want to record music well, do what almost everybody on this Homerecording.com forum does and use the great tools that are freely available brand new and at a good price. Or go used if you have to.

I have a room full of analog cassette and reel to reel machines and since I'm a tech, most of them work and work really well. I play around with them occasionally because I love the old stuff and know how to keep it going.

But when I need to seriously record, edit, mix, master audio or video I do what most other people do. I use today's tools. They work well.

Good luck whatever you do.

 

[mfdjuve]

If nobody wants to record to tape anymore, maybe there's a valid reason? Why are we still debating digital vs analog? If tape were superior, surely we wouldn't settle for a computer, just for the ease of use etc? I still see the romance in recording analog....maybe it's just BS and should wake up to what's available now.

It just seems that my favourite records are recorded to tape, and the musicians I admire are analog enthusiasts........it's hard to make up your own mind sometimes

 

[jpmorris]

The simple fact is that something which is full of moving parts and hard-to-manufacture components like tape heads is going to be substantially more expensive than something which is entirely solid state.
I believe Otari still have new 5050s, but when you can buy a laptop and 2-channel audio interface for about $500, an expensive and complex machine is something of a labour of love.

As for superiority, cassette displaced reel-to-reel in the home because it was more convenient, even though the sound quality is dire in comparison, and MP3 with its artifacts is eating away at full-quality CDs. When it comes to convenience, it seems to win out over quality every time.

 

[briank]

To clear up a few things...reel to reel decks are pretty much of a niche market, not really a big market, and as pointed out, there are so many on the used market, and it would be so complicated/costly to make new ones, that pretty much nobody is bothering. Otari is still making the 5050, but it ain't cheap. Probably just as well that new machines aren't being mass mfr'd for this market as they'd just be wimpy lowest-bidder plastic parts bins like so many other modern consumer products. Pardon my cynicism.

Not all machines for sale are broken. There are some good condition machines out there, but you have to leanr about them and go in as a particularly savvy buyer and expect to pay a premium unless you get lucky and find that $50 "little old lady only drove it to church on Sundays" type deal.

This equipment isn't getting any newer and it helps to at least have some very basic tech skills. You need basic tech skills to run a DAW on an iMac, and don't, whatever you do, expect a computer recording platform to be trouble free either!!! On the former you might be replacing a part or cleaning a connector; on the latter, you might be flummoxed by a hardware incompatibility or have to click your way out of a funky software issue. Recording takes some savvy and competence any way you slice it, that's why there are professionals in the field For the home user, it's a case of how you'd rather work and whether you prefer to solve problems with a mouse or a volt meter, if you see my meaning.

It's true that you will need to commit yourself to regular upkeep even with a good working order machine. At the very least you have to keep the tape path clean with some swabs and 99% isopropyl alcohol, and keep an eye on things, listen for noises in the transport and generally make sure it's running happy. You can save yourself a lot of trouble by keeping up on routine maintenance and learning how to find and buy a machine that isn't already totally knackered. The flipside is these older machines are built way, way more solidly (and in many cases with repairability in mind) than anything made today, so there's that!

As for new production tape, ATR does NOT cost twice as much as RMGI (!), at least not in North America. I can't say what Welsh distributors might be smoking!

 

[diggy_dude]

Why aren't there any modern manufacturers of tape machines?

There are two companies offering new reel-to-reel machines, but they're insanely expensive boutique audiophile decks. One of them is playback-only. There will never be more than a tiny niche market for machines like that.

If you want a tape machine, your best bet would be to find a TEAC from the mid-70s at an estate sale. They will be easiest to find parts for and to do minor repairs yourself.

The new tape being made by RMGI in Holland is some of the best tape ever made. If you find a TEAC in working condition or that can be fixed up on the cheap, you can get good results with their LPR-35. It's around $25 for a 7" reel - less if you buy a pancake and spool it onto your own reels. I haven't even used any of my new LPR-3 yet because I'm getting great results from used Maxell UD 35.

 

[diggy_dude]

Not all machines for sale are broken. There are some good condition machines out there, but you have to leanr about them and go in as a particularly savvy buyer and expect to pay a premium unless you get lucky and find that $50 "little old lady only drove it to church on Sundays" type deal.

That's exactly the deal I lucked into! I paid $50 for the deck, another $50 for shipping, and another $50 for a new reel table. And I have plenty of good used and new tape for mixing down a few albums. The seller didn't know anything about tape decks and didn't even know how to test them. But he saw and heard this one working before he bought it. I was hesitant to buy from someone like that, but I researched his feedback thoroughly and found that other buyers who had bought a deck from him were pleased with the deal.

 

[VESSEL2020]

It's true that you will need to commit yourself to regular upkeep even with a good working order machine. At the very least you have to keep the tape path clean with some swabs and 99% isopropyl alcohol, and keep an eye on things, listen for noises in the transport and generally make sure it's running happy.

That's the fun part about it!
A ritual in my eyes.

 

[briank]

That's the fun part about it!
A ritual in my eyes.

Yeah, it's good bonding. You gotta clean it up and give it some alcohol before makin' sweet sweet love to it

 

[jpmorris]

As for new production tape, ATR does NOT cost twice as much as RMGI (!), at least not in North America. I can't say what Welsh distributors might be smoking!

Stanley Productions : ATR MAGNETICS 1" x 10.5" MASTER AUDIO TAPE on METAL PRECISION REEL. code: ATR 10907
"RMGI" RMGI SM911 1 Inch Tape at Studiospares
...sadly Stanleys are the only distributor in the UK that I have found - and they don't sell RMGI so a direct comparison isn't practical. Both prices exclude sales tax, FWIW.
It would probably be cheaper to have it flown in from the States.

Back to the topic at hand, I think a lot of it depends on what you're doing. Some people just want to record stuff by whatever means is most convenient and cheap - for them, a dedicated recorder like the Roland VS2480 is probably best.
Some people want convenience of editing and the ability to fix a sloppy performance easily - a computer-based DAW is probably best for that, assuming you are able to keep Windows alive long enough to finish the project.

For me, I don't feel like I've accomplished something with a song until I can hold it in my hand. I want to approach recording in a similar way to the way my heroes had to because that was the only way at the time. I could probably get much slicker results with a DAW, but I use tape because I find the process more aesthetically pleasing, warts and all. A production video would look more interesting with the tape turning than a screenshot of the rendering process going from 0 to 100% :-/

 

[mfdjuve]

This is a nice segment from a 'sound on sound' article on a Studer A-800 emulator plug in.


Do We Still Need Tape?
When talking about analogue tape, people tend to get a glow in their eyes and go on about how much better music sounded back in the day. Recording on tape certainly makes a difference, but other factors beside tape compression were responsible for that sound. The limited track count meant that adding 40 tracks of vocal overdubs simply wasn’t possible, and there were, at best, three tracks for the singer to nail his or her parts. Even if editing could be done by cutting tape, it was a lot easier to just do a couple of punch‑ins until the musicians nailed it, and everything didn’t have to sound perfect. Accepting some flaws, it still made the musicians more alert, because what ended up on tape was what ended up on the record. Recording on tape is — compared to working with computers — more of a musical process, because it’s easier to focus on what’s being recorded when you’re not staring at a computer screen. Those fortunate enough to have access to a tape machine and the time and money to keep it in good shape will most likely continue to record on tape.
For the rest of us, not having the space or the financial means to buy an analogue multitrack tape recorder, but still wanting the sound of tape compression, the UAD Studer A800 plug‑in is a great alternative. Will it instantly make your vocals sound great and your guitars sound fat? No, but recording them on tape won’t either. A tape recording will make everything sit together in the mix and when the plug‑in is strapped across all audio channels — adding just a little bit of saturation — it will also provide the oft‑needed glue to make the mix more coherent. (It’s just a shame that non‑UAD2 users can’t get access to it!)
Now and then, plug‑ins are released that really change the way we relate to digital processing, and make the boundaries between analogue hardware and plug‑ins more and more blurred. Using the latter instead of the equivalent hardware no longer necessarily has to do with decreasing production revenues or the music business in decline. Sometimes the plug‑ins just sound as good as the hardware, so why not use them? Universal Audio have gone to great lengths to capture the very essence of analogue tape compression and have done so very successfully. Naturally, it can’t reproduce the experience of watching a big tape machine spinning reels and pushing the VU meter into the red zone. What it will do is to provide a glue that makes your mixes more coherent, and if you really commit to the sound, makes mixing a bit easier. It’s not like waving a magic wand, but recording on tape isn’t either; it’s a way of working. The next time you’re recording a band, why not tell them that you’re using a new tape plug‑in, and that there will only be 24 tracks available for the recording session?

 

[Beck]

If nobody wants to record to tape anymore, maybe there's a valid reason? Why are we still debating digital vs analog? If tape were superior, surely we wouldn't settle for a computer, just for the ease of use etc?

Yes, that's exactly what happened. The bar has been lowered. The definition of hi-fi was dumbed down and it keeps getting dumber. Convenience is the driving force and has been for some time. It’s easy enough to see by looking at the evolution of the user end-medium. It’s not Blu-Ray or SACD, but something even inferior to CD… lossy compressed formats like mp3. And the playback devices are even less impressive. iPODs with ear buds? LOL There’s no question about it. Many people care less about sound quality than they do about convenience.

Nonetheless, analog is alive and well in the studio. Plenty of people want to record to analog. And as I’ve said many times over the years it’s the robustness of tape decks that makes it so manufacturers would have to compete against their own legacy equipment, because old decks don’t die nor do they become incompatible with new computer hardware, operating systems and programs. They do what they do the same way they did it when new.

The digital world is in a constant state of transition. You can buy the newest hardware, programs and plug-ins today and they’ll be obsolete due to incompatibility before the tape decks I’ve owned for 25+ years are.

I use both analog and digital. I can mess around with digital for fun… but when I want to do something serious I use analog.

 

[ofajen]

Tape machines are only designed to record audio, not create slide presentations or surf the Web. In a musical context, they require more of the performer in terms of actually being able to play. OTOH, they offer subjectively good sound, straightforward appliance-like operation, zero latency without cumbersome work-arounds, easy compatibility with other analog audio gear and consistent, long-term recording practices. If that is what you want, tape is still viable and probably preferred.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[sweetbeats]

Do We Still Need Tape?

Wow.

I'm not even going to begin to trod upon THAT steaming pile...that is a question that is impossible to answer in blanket form. I for one, based on my personal experience, cannot for the life of me understand why not every recording enthusiast doesn't have at least a decent quality halftrack machine for mastering.

The crown jewel of analog tape recording is imperfection. Complex noise, distortion and spectral non-linearities that are far more complex than digital processing can faithfully emulate.

I think its amusing that so many companies are making money trying to copy what tape does with ease, and they aren't hitting the mark IMO because they CAN'T, for me that is. Plenty are happy with what the digital emulations offer, but it seems silly to not just go get the real thing.

That's my firm opinion and nobody can take it away. I'm not saying one is better than the other for everybody, I'm simply saying that I think that trying to emulate tape with a digital plugin is goofy.

Hey everybody! Digital is WAYYYYYY better!!! which is why we're trying to emulate tape...um...... . . . .. yeah...

 

[VESSEL2020]

This is a nice segment from a 'sound on sound' article on a Studer A-800 emulator plug in.


Do We Still Need Tape?
When talking about analogue tape, people tend to get a glow in their eyes and go on about how much better music sounded back in the day. Recording on tape certainly makes a difference, but other factors beside tape compression were responsible for that sound. The limited track count meant that adding 40 tracks of vocal overdubs simply wasn’t possible, and there were, at best, three tracks for the singer to nail his or her parts. Even if editing could be done by cutting tape, it was a lot easier to just do a couple of punch‑ins until the musicians nailed it, and everything didn’t have to sound perfect. Accepting some flaws, it still made the musicians more alert, because what ended up on tape was what ended up on the record. Recording on tape is — compared to working with computers — more of a musical process, because it’s easier to focus on what’s being recorded when you’re not staring at a computer screen. Those fortunate enough to have access to a tape machine and the time and money to keep it in good shape will most likely continue to record on tape.
For the rest of us, not having the space or the financial means to buy an analogue multitrack tape recorder, but still wanting the sound of tape compression, the UAD Studer A800 plug‑in is a great alternative. Will it instantly make your vocals sound great and your guitars sound fat? No, but recording them on tape won’t either. A tape recording will make everything sit together in the mix and when the plug‑in is strapped across all audio channels — adding just a little bit of saturation — it will also provide the oft‑needed glue to make the mix more coherent. (It’s just a shame that non‑UAD2 users can’t get access to it!)
Now and then, plug‑ins are released that really change the way we relate to digital processing, and make the boundaries between analogue hardware and plug‑ins more and more blurred. Using the latter instead of the equivalent hardware no longer necessarily has to do with decreasing production revenues or the music business in decline. Sometimes the plug‑ins just sound as good as the hardware, so why not use them? Universal Audio have gone to great lengths to capture the very essence of analogue tape compression and have done so very successfully. Naturally, it can’t reproduce the experience of watching a big tape machine spinning reels and pushing the VU meter into the red zone. What it will do is to provide a glue that makes your mixes more coherent, and if you really commit to the sound, makes mixing a bit easier. It’s not like waving a magic wand, but recording on tape isn’t either; it’s a way of working. The next time you’re recording a band, why not tell them that you’re using a new tape plug‑in, and that there will only be 24 tracks available for the recording session?

No offense, (directed towards S.O.S. columnist)
Is this why I keep seeing all these posts from a new breed of a later generation, about "I'm interested in going analog,..and I'd really like to pick up a 488 or 388, or maybe even a 38"... or "I just picked up a reel to reel, can someone tell me how to thread the tape?".. "I'd really like to use it as a front end for my DAW."


I myself have nothing against digital,...as a matter of fact, I own a few digital pieces of gear. I just prefer to use tape.
I have friends frequently asking me for a recording of my own music, but 99.9% of it is on tape.
My first question to them is,.."Do you have a cassette deck?"..."I'll dub you a copy."


I don't care how far advanced the so-called "analog plug-ins" go,...they'll never compare to real tape compression/saturation.
Somebody 20 years from now can look back on this^ and laugh,...but IMO,..they'll NEVER replicate the real thing.
I'll still be recording on tape until it becomes obsolete,..and even then, I have a nice stock pile to outlast me.

 

[sweetbeats]

I myself have nothing against digital,...as a matter of fact, I own a few digital pieces of gear. I just prefer to use tape.

Yyyyep. Me too.

Yamaha 01X
Yamaha i88x
Presonus Digimax FS
Cubase 4
Tascam 224

The "digital age" is the latest step in a de-evolution of the recording and reproduction in the world of music. Early analog recording mediums lacked fidelity, subjectively speaking...wire, wax, direct-to-disc (not the digital kind) and early pre-AC bias analog tape...yes they all have a wonderful nostalgic quality, but still no match for sitting in front of the live performance.

When tape and machines had improved and multitracking conventions hadn't taken hold and ensembles recorded live together and channel counts were small and track counts were even smaller...THOSE conventions coupled with the tape medium produced some of the very best music. This is personal taste, period. I don't care if anybody else agrees with me though I know there are plenty who do. Multitracking has changed the way music is produced. It has opened the door to new sounds and ideas. I'm certainly not against these things and the majority of my favorite music was produced through contemporary multitracking conventions, but there is a dramatic shift in the product when you go from live ensemble through single-digit channel counts to 1, 2 or 3 tracks vs 56 x 24 mixers bussing to "unlimited" tracks.

Above I referred to the "de-evolution" of recording and reproduction, and I feel that de-evolution started with multitracking. That changed so many aspects of the recording process to the point that a drumkit was being recorded one drum at a time to maximize track isolation. And has been mentioned a number of times over many threads in the past and in this thread as well, data-compressed digital audio just...sucks. But by in large people just don't hear the "sucky" anymore and sucky is the new "good" and that's all part of the more-more-more drive. By the advent of the digital age the market push for manufacturers of analog tape machines was to produce machines that were lowest noise, lowest distortion, flatest response "as good as digital"..."Transparent"...well as I said before the crown jewel of analog tape is imperfection. Its a mess what the tape is doing to the signal. A lovely non-linear complex mess and shame on us for ever trying to deny what tape is and does in the first place...and now the digital world is trying to emulate that mess.

So I see that era of better fidelity tape machines and equipment combined with limited tracks and live ensemble recording as the pinnacle and we've gone downhill from there in terms of the focal point of how to capture the music, because a huge part of the music is the mess of an ensemble vibing off of each other and the mic bleed and the complex mess of sound bouncing around the room.

I believe that maximizing the art of capturing that mess in the best way possible is time well spent over tweaking 46 digital tracks with 15 different plugins...and yes some would say that's a "small" multitrack project.

And yes I'm a big ol' hypocrite because I love multitracking...its a hoot...it is the tool that allows me to be my own ensemble or to get a certain sound that I love from the 70's that was defined by multitracking. And I've got a 2" 16-track machine, but make no mistake...that's as much about just having a big hurking tape machine...like the fun of driving a muscle-car...I don't really expect to use 16 tracks much when the Ampex MM-1000 is finally ready to operate as such...I just want to see 16 VU meter needles dancing around and to see 2" tape weaving its way through the tape path. And my other excuse is that my tape machine is a freaking dinosaur...the holdback tensions are totally different from beginning to end of the reel...no constant tension on that thing...I feel fortunate to have a tape counter on it as other Ampex machines from around that era didn't have anything...and its the kind of counter with gears and pinions and numbered wheels that go click-click-click...and oh is it a noisy machine...and smelly...and it sure ain't Energy Star compliant...and its got one heckuva head bump and response is diving by 18kHz...its lovingly kludgey and far from perfect. Ahhhhh, my tape machine.

And certainly I didn't always think/feel this way, but I'm glad to be waking up to these things the past few years.

 

[VESSEL2020]

data-compressed digital audio just...sucks. But by in large people just don't hear the "sucky" anymore and sucky is the new "good" and that's all part of the more-more-more drive.

as I said before the crown jewel of analog tape is imperfection. Its a mess what the tape is doing to the signal. A lovely non-linear complex mess and shame on us for ever trying to deny what tape is and does in the first place...and now the digital world is trying to emulate that mess.

I just want to see 16 VU meter needles dancing around and to see 2" tape weaving its way through the tape path. Ahhhhh, my tape machine.

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

 

[mfdjuve]

I've decided to buy a reel to reel recorder, and use a computer for mixdown..editing etc.
I know this a question asked all the time (I searched through 10 pages on this forum for info, but not really relevant to me) Anyway...da da DAH...which recorder to buy?

I can't afford a lot, I 'd say £350 (approx $600) for the recorder and another few hundred for the a mixer (advice on mixer is very much welcome too). I need at least 8 tracks. Pardon my stupidity, but why do 2 track recorders exist? mastering? And are 4 tracks just because 8 track wasn't around yet? :/

The tascam 38's always seems to have issues on ebay, and go for around £150/£200.

there seem to be a few 388 popping up for around £250, but always state transport problems etc.


thanks!

 

[lonewhitefly]

not to derail this thread TOO much, but ...

one pet peeve of mine is the idea that recording on analog is somehow super expensive. if you choose wisely where you put your money, its not more expensive than digital, and often, you can get by with much less in analog. in my experience, all things considered, recording analog is actually less expensive than digital.