My first 2" experience

  • Thread starter Thread starter Muckelroy
  • Start date Start date
M

Muckelroy

Member
I visited Top Hat Recording in Austin, TX yesterday.

I heard a session off of a Studer A-827 2" 24 track. This was my FIRST TIME to hear a 2" session IN PERSON. (sad, i know.)

What can I say? Great band, great tracks, and what I heard was ASTOUNDING. Everything I've ever expected sonic-wise from 2" was present in the mix.

The owner was using 456 at 15 ips, no noise reduction. I asked, "Why 456 as opposed to 499, and why 15 ips as opposed to 30 ips?"

He then explained that when he was growing up, the records he loved to listen to were all done using 456. So, he just thought that was the right choice. Plus, he said 499 and GP9 just sounded to "clinical" and precise for his hears. He tracks at 15 ips to get that color (He HATED using the word "warmth") which melds all the tracks together as an ensemble. He had no other real explanation, except that it just SOUNDED BETTER than 30 ips. And, he thought, what the hell? More record time, and less head wear than 30 ips.

I listened to this session, all 24 tracks contributing to this beautiful alternative-rock track, and just melted in my chair. I don't know how else to explain the sound of those tracks. There was virtually no noticeable noise. I had the monitors up to about 90 dBSPL, and only in during solos, or quiet sections of the songs was there the slightest hint of noise..........so what? It sounds good.

I'll shut up. Just thought I'd share my listening experience with you guys.
 
That sounds like a Hoot!
I would love to be able to go to a session like that.
What kind of board did they use?
 
Muckelroy said:
I visited Top Hat Recording in Austin, TX yesterday.

I heard a session off of a Studer A-827 2" 24 track. This was my FIRST TIME to hear a 2" session IN PERSON. (sad, i know.)

What can I say? Great band, great tracks, and what I heard was ASTOUNDING. Everything I've ever expected sonic-wise from 2" was present in the mix.

The owner was using 456 at 15 ips, no noise reduction. I asked, "Why 456 as opposed to 499, and why 15 ips as opposed to 30 ips?"

He then explained that when he was growing up, the records he loved to listen to were all done using 456. So, he just thought that was the right choice. Plus, he said 499 and GP9 just sounded to "clinical" and precise for his hears. He tracks at 15 ips to get that color (He HATED using the word "warmth") which melds all the tracks together as an ensemble. He had no other real explanation, except that it just SOUNDED BETTER than 30 ips. And, he thought, what the hell? More record time, and less head wear than 30 ips.

I listened to this session, all 24 tracks contributing to this beautiful alternative-rock track, and just melted in my chair. I don't know how else to explain the sound of those tracks. There was virtually no noticeable noise. I had the monitors up to about 90 dBSPL, and only in during solos, or quiet sections of the songs was there the slightest hint of noise..........so what? It sounds good.

I'll shut up. Just thought I'd share my listening experience with you guys.
Click to expand...

Ahhh..............yeah. But I get lambasted here everytime I try to describe how much better sounding a good 2" pro recorder sounds against the narrow track home type machines. The two sound worlds apart and until people listen in person to the difference, the words are wasted. And, 15ips is desireable because you don't lose the low end. 30ips is too fast. I use 15ips all the time and, with 24 tracks rolling, my decks are very quiet.
 
I just graduated from a 1" 8 track to a 2" 16 track. Amazing sound from both machines, just more of it from the 2" machine!! I was mainly runnning 15ips 456 on the 1" and loved the sound. So far, I have only run 30ips with 499 on the 2" machine and still love the sound (The SM911 shed all over the place). It is different, but still wonderful. it seems to have a little more sparkle than the other setup. I can totally see calibrating the machine for different sessions and styles of music. I am a proud pappa!! Here is a pic of the new baby!


http://www.marshmanstudios.com/misc/DSCN0170_800.JPG

edit: can't seem to get the link to work from here, but it works if you paste it into the address bar.
 
Last edited:
MCI2424 said:
Ahhh..............yeah. But I get lambasted here everytime I try to describe how much better sounding a good 2" pro recorder sounds against the narrow track home type machines. The two sound worlds apart and until people listen in person to the difference, the words are wasted. And, 15ips is desireable because you don't lose the low end. 30ips is too fast. I use 15ips all the time and, with 24 tracks rolling, my decks are very quiet.
Click to expand...

My band's first album was recorded on a 2" Otari 24 track. It sounded SO good in the studio but when he mixed it down to an Alesis Masterlink, so much was lost. But, putting the two machines next to each other, like the Otari 24 track and a Tascam MSR-16 16 track (1/2" machine), the Otari would sound worlds better without and noise reduction.

Unless you have expensive, excellent converters, so much is lost when you eventually dump to digital, which truly is a part of the process for today's music, unless you can convince somebody to listen to a cassette or vinyl record. But, comparing a high-end, professional multitrack to a home-use multitrack...

-MD
 
sweet? are you selling your 1" 8 ?

marshman said:
I just graduated from a 1" 8 track to a 2" 16 track. Amazing sound from both machines, just more of it from the 2" machine!! I was mainly runnning 15ips 456 on the 1" and loved the sound. So far, I have only run 30ips with 499 on the 2" machine and still love the sound (The SM911 shed all over the place). It is different, but still wonderful. it seems to have a little more sparkle than the other setup. I can totally see calibrating the machine for different sessions and styles of music. I am a proud pappa!! Here is a pic of the new baby!


http://www.marshmanstudios.com/misc/DSCN0170_800.JPG

edit: can't seem to get the link to work from here, but it works if you paste it into the address bar.
Click to expand...
 
It may still be available, It is at Randy Blevins place. You could call him and see. It was a primo machine, I would have kept it except I am addicted to tape again and wanted more tracks.

www.blevinsaudio.com

mm
 
Muckelroy, thanks for sharing the most interesting experience. The 827 is a nice machine. :)
 
WOW! That is a BEAUTIFUL machine indeed! If there was only a smiley for salivating ... ;)
 

Attachments

  • tn_DSCN0170_800.webp
    tn_DSCN0170_800.webp
    40.8 KB · Views: 94
MCI2424 said:
But I get lambasted here everytime I try to describe how much better sounding a good 2" pro recorder sounds against the narrow track home type machines. The two sound worlds apart and until people listen in person to the difference, the words are wasted.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's one person here who disputes the above but the way you expressed yourself (in the past) and the way you made it sound, many times outright bashing the "home type" machines, was insulting to many. It wasn't what you said but rather how you said it that turned off people. Other than that you're right but you must understand that there are viable reasons why many of us take to TASCAM / TEAC / FOSTEX and other so called semi-pro gear. Isn't this HOME RECORDING after all ? ;)
 
Last edited:
cjacek said:
I don't think there's one person here who disputes the above but the way you expressed yourself (in the past) and the way you made it sound, many times outright bashing the "home type" machines, was insulting to many. It wasn't what you said but rather how you said it that turned off people. Other than that you're right but you must understand that there are viable reasons why many of us take to TASCAM / TEAC / FOSTEX and other so called semi-pro gear. Isn't this HOME RECORDING after all ? ;)
Click to expand...

Uhh...You should re-read what I said in RESPONSE to outright bullshit posted by a few here. I never said home recording decks were useless but I will refute rediculous statements that "...the sonic differences between home recorders and pro recorders are not that great..." (an actual pseudo-quote). I have 2 "home" recorders (Fostex E-16s) and they are great decks. But I would never put them in the same league as the big pro decks. I would also never lead people who are thinking of "going analog, what deck should I get?" into thinking they will get that "warm analog" sound out of the narrow gap home machines when they are limited to having to use noise reduction.

This thread will not turn into a shitfest as I have said what I want to say to the original poaster and he has found out, in person, the legit differences between the two worlds.
 
Damn, I wish I could record on 2"-16 track. Nearly all the studios I can afford/get to which still do tape are 24-track, which is mildly irritating as I don't really need that many...
 
Heh. 16 track 2" would be MY pipe dream!

The school's studio has an MCI JH-24. The transport's all right, but 7 of the 24 tracks of electronics have problems.

My first thought was to install a 16 track headstack, and swap around the electronics to have a working 2" 16 track machine, no soldering required!!

So I asked if they had a 16 track headstack somewhere, and they said YES, but unfortunately it got fried somehow. Apparently a major power surge managed to work it's way PAST our GFCI outlets, and affected all the gear in the studio -- One of the few casualties just happened to be that headstack :(


So there's only a 24 track headstack, that needs to be relapped badly. And 7 tracks worth of audio electronics that have various component problems, Not sure exactly what needs to be done to them, but yeah.

THEN ON TOP OF THAT, the thing's been in storage for 4 years, so God knows how many MORE problems have surfaced since then..........It's sad.

I just hope the JH-110 can be successfully revived.

-callie-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top