modern tape machines?

[jpmorris]

If you can stretch to £450, there's a nice-looking TASCAM TSR-8, recently serviced apparently. Despite the picture it looks like that's only the machine, though and not the tape or remote.

Come to that, I have a spare TSR-8 myself, which I should probably get rid of, really...

You also want to budget for cables since the recorders are usually RCA and the mixers are usually 1/4" jack.

2-track machines are for recording the stereo mixdown. A CD (or vinyl record) does not have 24 tracks on it, it has two - left and right. Hence you need to mix your 8 tracks or whatever down to stereo. You could just stick it into a PC soundcard if you wanted. 4-track machines are kind of entry level, though I shy away from them myself. It takes a lot more effort and discipline to record complex songs on 4-track than I really possess. (EDIT: No offence intended to people who like working that way :3)
Originally 1/4" 4-track machines were intended for quadraphonic audio, until some bright spark in the early 70s decided they would make nice home studio recorders...

Anyway. Some people multitrack on computer and mix down to stereo tape - other people multitrack on tape and edit and mix on a PC (ADD). Traditionalists multitrack on tape and mix to tape, digitizing the stereo master afterwards (AAD).

EDIT EDIT: Don't forget that 1/2" tape is about £40 a pop for 33 minutes. 1/4" is cheaper, but the machines which use that tend to be the 388, and the Fostex machines like the M80 and R8 which were budget and extremely prone to transport issues (cracked capstan pulley, plastic clips they use instead of screws to cut costs coming loose etc).

 

[jpmorris]

Regarding mixing to 2-track, this might be of some interest:
Song of Keaton mixing video clip - YouTube
...the video features a small 24-track machine, a TSR-8 which I use for vocals and songs that fit in 8 tracks, and the large one with wooden cheeks is a Studer A807 which I use for stereo mixdown. AFAIK it probably spent most of its life used for stereo playback in a BBC radio station.

 

[Blue Jinn]

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 of an ensemble vibing off of each other and the mic bleed and the complex mess of sound bouncing around the room.

That's a tough one. First an anectode, I was riding in the rental car bus the other day, Sirius is one of the big sells, so they had the Elvis channel on (I find it weird there is an Elvis, Grateful Dead, and a Pearl Jam channel....) Now I'm not really a big Elvis fan, can take it or leave it, but this was old Elvis, 50s Elvis, I'm certain recorded live Elvis, and even as a crappy mp3 over the bus speaker, it sounded FANTASTIC. Just hearing one hell of a tight band behind Elvis voice was pretty impressive, and made that way because technology forced that tight playing. But, fast forward to the 1970s, you have Queen (not really a big Queen fan) or ELO (OK I was/am a big ELO fan, bought that Telephone Line record when it came out....) that couldn't have been done w/ ensemble, but had to be done w/ multitracking, but working with not against the limitations of finite tracks. Did we lose something from Elvis to Queen? I don't think so, so I'm painting myself into a corner, because we shouldn't have lost anything going from tape to tracks limited only by CPU and RAM power. If I have to find the mistake it is that the transition (IMO and MO only) has become spending more time manipulating music than actually making it. Maybe that is the devolution. Then again, maybe I'm full of crap, but I still prefer music recorded on tape. (Arcade Fire, Shins, anyone?)

 

[sweetbeats]

Yeah, I think my point is that the focus continues to drift...not completely but for the masses there is less focus on what I consider the best stuff.

Your Elvis experience...same thing happened to me with the XM radio on "50's on 5" and "I Only Have Eyes For You" by the Flamingos...and "Blue Angel" by Roy Orbison. Unbelievable sounds and nearly 60 years old and being reproduced over one of the most AWFUL ways to experience music...and it still blew me away. Its the whole thing...the performance, arrangement, the recording...BAM!

 

[Tim Gillett]

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

Can you tell us what are your favourite records? Also, which are the musicians that you admire?

Cheers Tim

 

[mfdjuve]

modern albums I love the sound of, that were recorded on tape.

John Frusciante- The Empyrean (I read no computers were used at all, it sounds phenomenal)
Radiohead -In Rainbows
Devendra Banhart- Cripple crown and Rejoicing in the hands.

 

[jpmorris]

Gah, I forgot the link to the TSR-8. (Not mine)
Tascam TSR-8 Tape Machine | eBay

 

[Tim Gillett]

modern albums I love the sound of, that were recorded on tape.

John Frusciante- The Empyrean (I read no computers were used at all, it sounds phenomenal)
Radiohead -In Rainbows
Devendra Banhart- Cripple crown and Rejoicing in the hands.

There's some talented performers there. But that's the whole point. There are millions of other recordings out there that were done totally analog, not least all the ones made pre- digital. But do you or I get off on all of those recordings too just because they were totally analog productions? Of course not. It's the music that is most important, not minor aspects of production.

I think I have a pretty good ear for production but to be honest, in a blindfold test I would be struggling to pick whether many recordings were made to analog tape or digital, and in the end I dont really care.

The recording machine is just one aspect of production. Once we make one type of recorder central to production I think we're starting to lose the plot. I say keep an open mind.

Cheers Tim

 

[mfdjuve]

I'm the same, i doubt I could tell. Though the albums I do think sound fantastic, when researched upon always seem to be analog.

Whats put me off buying a Mac, is listening to friends or young bedroom 'producers' music. It sounds so crisp and clean, and basically everyones recording ssounding the same to me. Probably mainly to do with the drum machines...plugins and everyone using logic. The recordings aren't bad whatsoever, they just lack personality imo. I understand my music wont sound like magic, just because it's tape. But I think an amateur recording on tape will sound better than an amateur on digital.....at least I can't claim to be be 'lofi', or say 'yeah listen to that vibe man'.....if the recording is poor.

From experience, I know I like twisting knobs, having hardware... the 'romance' of tape and vintage gear. Even if it's all just in my head, and a load of BS in reality. What's in my head, and the feelings I get, my intention and the process..is what will make a good recording. Obviously if I had the same passion for working on Mac, the results would be the same. Mouse clicking, waveforms and screens, don't excite me at the moment.

 

[sweetbeats]

The recording machine is just one aspect of production. Once we make one type of recorder central to production I think we're starting to lose the plot. I say keep an open mind.

Tim, I agree with this. Your statement helps me to clarify my thoughts. I think that some of the best music was and is brought out when the recording machine lacks an "undo" menu selection or an "edit" menu simply because of where that directs the focus of the process. Make it good. Prepare. Certainly I prefer the sound of stuff tracked to tape, but my main point is the process...a process that avoids multitracking the thing to death and tweaking-tweaking-tweaking...a process that gets the ensemble together.

And, again, I'm a fan of music, so in the end the process doesn't kill my appreciation and enjoyment of just about any kind of music from any era. I simply feel that many today are unaware of a different way of handling the recording process, seeing the "50's way" as something stuck in that era with no value or application today.

 

[jpmorris]

I simply feel that many today are unaware of a different way of handling the recording process, seeing the "50's way" as something stuck in that era with no value or application today.

To be fair, I don't really see that recording style happening in a home recording project.

 

[lonewhitefly]

The recording machine is just one aspect of production. Once we make one type of recorder central to production I think we're starting to lose the plot. I say keep an open mind.

Cheers Tim

i see where you're coming from, and agree to some extent, but i really think tape machines are integral to the sound and feeling of a recording more than we're aware of sometimes. It's certainly a subtle kind of energy, and i'm not saying it will make or break it, but i think there are always two sides to the "gear doesn't matter" debate.

personally, i can say with certainty that i would not be able to achieve satisfactory results or a positive work environment without tape. i think the tape machine is a very important member of the musical lineup.

 

[ofajen]

The recording machine is just one aspect of production. Once we make one type of recorder central to production I think we're starting to lose the plot.

Sorry, Tim, can't agree. Tape machines work well for me. When I play and record music, I don't want to look at screens, nor deal with a machine that wants to tell me what measure and beat I'm at. It's a completely different mindset for me, and a big deal. Also, I can get the sound I want quicker, easier and with less gear when I track and mix to tape. That's just me, and no reflection on what anyone else does.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[sweetbeats]

To be fair, I don't really see that recording style happening in a home recording project.

Why not?

Maybe we're talking about different things.

I'm meaning ensemble recording with limited mics/tracks. You can do that anywhere...even your living room in your home...home recording.

 

[Tim Gillett]

I'm the same, i doubt I could tell. Though the albums I do think sound fantastic, when researched upon always seem to be analog.

Whats put me off buying a Mac, is listening to friends or young bedroom 'producers' music. It sounds so crisp and clean, and basically everyones recording ssounding the same to me. Probably mainly to do with the drum machines...plugins and everyone using logic. The recordings aren't bad whatsoever, they just lack personality imo. I understand my music wont sound like magic, just because it's tape. But I think an amateur recording on tape will sound better than an amateur on digital.....at least I can't claim to be be 'lofi', or say 'yeah listen to that vibe man'.....if the recording is poor.

From experience, I know I like twisting knobs, having hardware... the 'romance' of tape and vintage gear. Even if it's all just in my head, and a load of BS in reality. What's in my head, and the feelings I get, my intention and the process..is what will make a good recording. Obviously if I had the same passion for working on Mac, the results would be the same. Mouse clicking, waveforms and screens, don't excite me at the moment.

You say the albums you think sound fantastic, when researched upon always seem to be analog. Well if that is true , are you keen to explore this and find out exactly what analog device was making the production sound so fantastic and why? I would want to learn just how it worked in that situation.

If a recording lacks personality I suspect that's because the musician's music and performance lacks personality. "Personality" or distinctiveness is not something you can bottle and sell to the general public. I very much doubt that using an analog tape machine - or any other device - is going to miraculously give a performance "personality".

Re using hardware rather than screens and menus, if you have the money you can buy that but it can be serious money. I have a professional grade video camera and part of the joy of using it is the real knobs and switches whiih can easily be reached. You dont even have to look. You can get used to their position and adjust focus, gain, iris, audio gain, etc while actually shooting. A much better way to do it as opposed to menus, but you have to pay for the privelege. I dont find it romantic so much as practical.

But modern digital audio recording/ mixing/ mastering systems can have so many tools inside them that to access all those tools via knobs and switches would cost a fortune and would be probably physically very large as well.
You then also have potential reliability problems. Anyone working with audio electronics knows that often it is those very pots and switches that are the first items to fail or fall short of their original reliability.
I dont get off on "Mouse clicking, waveforms and screens" either but they are practical necessity unless you have unlimited budget and room, and if you want to make use of tools that a few decades ago only pro audio engineeers could afford.

I suspect that many bad home audio productions using digital programs (or analog for that matter) are poor in spite of the technology, not because of it. So often the problem is not so much the tools as the person using them. The old "nut behind the wheel" syndrome.

Cheers Tim

 

[jpmorris]

Why not?
I'm meaning ensemble recording with limited mics/tracks. You can do that anywhere...even your living room in your home...home recording.

Most homes don't have the ensemble. A large chunk of home recording these days is done by solo artists.

 

[mfdjuve]

You say the albums you think sound fantastic, when researched upon always seem to be analog. Well if that is true , are you keen to explore this and find out exactly what analog device was making the production sound so fantastic and why? I would want to learn just how it worked in that situation.

Yes I do find out what was used. Nearly always, big expensive 2" tape machines. Expensive vintage consoles. Recorded with a team of people that knew what they were doing, in a lovely studio. Doesn't really help me does it?

John Frusciante's latest album...

The Empyrean's a handmade record. It was recorded on and mixed from two Studer A-800 24-track machines locked together with a Lynx. There's a lot of tape manipulation going on: backwards effects, speed changes, etc. We mixed the record on John's 40 channel API which has 560 graphics and no automation to an Ampex ATR 102 1/2" at 30 IPS

 

[jpmorris]

Interestingly, 1/2" 8-track has the same track width as 2" 24-track, but with narrower guard bands between each track. Doesn't help with the vintage consoles and experienced engineers bit, mind :-/

 

[sweetbeats]

Most homes don't have the ensemble. A large chunk of home recording these days is done by solo artists.

Okay. But I'm talking about an ensemble that chooses to track separately rather than together because "that's the way you do it" in a home studio that doesn't have the luxury of separate tracking rooms or having been engineered for isolation.

I understand your point about the solo artist and multitracking for sure, but I'm speaking about those situations where there is a group and they track separately to maximize isolation and opportunity for tweaking and editing.

 

[VESSEL2020]

Yes I do find out what was used. Nearly always, big expensive 2" tape machines. Expensive vintage consoles. Recorded with a team of people that knew what they were doing, in a lovely studio. Doesn't really help me does it?

John Frusciante's latest album...

I've read somewhere John F. used a Tascam 488 on a bunch of his first solo efforts.