Recording solution

[Zobi]

I'm trying to decide on what my recording set-up should be. I've been doing a bunch of research and I feel like I'm not getting anywhere close to a solution. I know that a computer set-up is pretty much what most people choose these days.

I'm into old-school hip hop and I know that most of my favorite albums were recorded on analog tape. From what I've gathered, it's only the high end professional 2" tape recorders that would give me "that warm analog sound". Apparently, anything less will give me a lot of noise, hiss, etc. Would you guys agree? Regarding a computer DAW, I see a lot of people complain about the "digital sound". Is it true that once I have my audio recorded in a computer, every time I touch it (move it, add gain, put an effect on it, etc...), the software has to re-draw all those 1s and 0s and do it really fast. So fast that sometimes it loses some of the 1's and 0's so it dithers it? Meaning I am losing a little bit of the signal each time.... Could this contribute to the "thin digital" sound? I know that the AD/DA converters are very important, but still......

I also read about combining digital and analog together. Recording everything into a software program, mix in software and then record the final master onto a tape or recording onto a tape and then dumping it into a software for mixing. Do you guys have experience with this kind of set-up? Would you recommend it?

My current set-up consists of hardware samplers/sequencers and Tascam M-320 mixer. That's all I have.

Any help and tips would be greatly appreciated.

 

[The Ghost of FM]

From what I've gathered, it's only the high end professional 2" tape recorders that would give me "that warm analog sound". Apparently, anything less will give me a lot of noise, hiss, etc. Would you guys agree?

No. I wouldn't agree.

I currently run a one inch 16 track deck that has a slightly narrower track width then a 2", 24 track professional deck but I have never been told my recordings from it lack warmth or are full of noise or distortion.

In fact, with dbx noise reduction, I am getting a signal to noise ratio right around 100db and a dynamic range of about 110db.

TASCAM and Otari have made some great narrower format machines in the past that when coupled with their optional dbx nr units, make them as clean and quiet as digital's best offerings but with none of digitals drawbacks as you detailed in your post.

Warming up a digital production with an analog master is also of benefit but, I prefer to track in analog and mix down to CDR for compatibility's sake with the rest of the world.

Cheers!

 

[Zobi]

Thanks a lot Ghost.

I'm very new to all of this stuff and it's hard to draw a conclusion based on what I read, since I have no experience. As far as sound goes, I lean towards analog solution, but since I'm making hip hop, manipulating and editing loops and samples seems to be easier with software.

What do you think? Are there any specific tape recorders I should consider?

Thanks again....

 

[The Ghost of FM]

For the type of work you are doing in the studio, You're probably best off just keeping your existing multitrack environment and going with a half track stereo reel to reel to fatten up your final productions with a final touch of analog mastering and from there, you can transfer back to digital but still have the two track master to give to a mastering engineer to press records or CDs with.

A TASCAM BR20T is a new and current model that goes for around $2K new or about 6 to 7 hundred used on Ebay if you want something current or new in the box. Otherwise, there's a host of older deuces out there from TASCAM, Otari, Fostex, Studer and others ranging from a couple of hundred bucks and up, used, readily available in the second hand market.

The TASCAM 32 and Otari MX5050 are pretty popular with many of the members here.

Cheers!

 

[Outlaws]

Is it true that once I have my audio recorded in a computer, every time I touch it (move it, add gain, put an effect on it, etc...), the software has to re-draw all those 1s and 0s and do it really fast. So fast that sometimes it loses some of the 1's and 0's so it dithers it? Meaning I am losing a little bit of the signal each time.... Could this contribute to the "thin digital" sound? I know that the AD/DA converters are very important, but still......

I have a feeling that everytime you touch a roll of tape, load up the tape, and especially every time you play the tape, you will be loosing more quality that a digital redrawing zeros.

The way computers work, just sliding something over - moving it from one spot to another - shouldn't loose anything. Since all the computer is doing is changing code. Not the music. Rather than moving the whole thing, it just changes a directory to say that sound clip A is to be played at X point in the time code.

I know this is the analog section, but for hiphop, unless you have the cash flow to operate a 2" machine, I don't think you will get what you are looking for. Now thats not to say what Ghost said was wrong...but I think hiphop and rock operate on two different plains.

But I would still look at mixing down to a half track.

Maybe find a studio that can do it, so you can see if it fits you needs rather than just blowing money for a test.

 

[acorec]

I'm trying to decide on what my recording set-up should be. I've been doing a bunch of research and I feel like I'm not getting anywhere close to a solution. I know that a computer set-up is pretty much what most people choose these days.

I'm into old-school hip hop and I know that most of my favorite albums were recorded on analog tape. From what I've gathered, it's only the high end professional 2" tape recorders that would give me "that warm analog sound". Apparently, anything less will give me a lot of noise, hiss, etc. Would you guys agree? Regarding a computer DAW, I see a lot of people complain about the "digital sound". Is it true that once I have my audio recorded in a computer, every time I touch it (move it, add gain, put an effect on it, etc...), the software has to re-draw all those 1s and 0s and do it really fast. So fast that sometimes it loses some of the 1's and 0's so it dithers it? Meaning I am losing a little bit of the signal each time.... Could this contribute to the "thin digital" sound? I know that the AD/DA converters are very important, but still......

I also read about combining digital and analog together. Recording everything into a software program, mix in software and then record the final master onto a tape or recording onto a tape and then dumping it into a software for mixing. Do you guys have experience with this kind of set-up? Would you recommend it?

My current set-up consists of hardware samplers/sequencers and Tascam M-320 mixer. That's all I have.

Any help and tips would be greatly appreciated.

Well, a 2" deck is a full time career and you have to know alot about tape machines to own one (if you wanna do it on the cheap). 1" and 2" decks are a whole different ballgame that he 1/2 " and under crowd. The sound is way better, but the whole experience of even moving one of these beasts is one to be remembered.

I bought an MCI JH24 2" 24 track machine and was quoted $900 for shipping and $400 to move it into my studio.

I picked up the machine myself (dissasembling the whole thing) and moving it myself, then re-assembling and aligning it myself. But, it sounds fantastic to say the least. If you have the education and $$$ then go for it. If you don't you will want to look at the 1/2" machines much more closely as they don't need to be aligned every session and tape is not $150 per reel.

 

[Zobi]

Thanks a lot to everyone for your advice.

I have no experience with recording at this point. The reason I asked about 2" machines was not because I was considering getting one. I just wanted to know if it was true that they're way above 1/4" and 1/2". I wouldn't be able to maintain and fix one and I wouldn't be able to afford one either.

For the type of work you are doing in the studio, You're probably best off just keeping your existing multitrack environment and going with a half track stereo reel to reel to fatten up your final productions with a final touch of analog mastering and from there, you can transfer back to digital but still have the two track master to give to a mastering engineer to press records or CDs with.

Ghost, I'm not sure what you mean by "existing multitrack environment" and "half track stereo". I don't have any multitrack at this point. If I understand correctly, you're suggesting to record onto a tape and do all the mixing and mastering in analog domain? If so, why would I transfer BACK to digital at the end? Sorry, I'm a little confused....

Outlaws, so you're saying that moving, pasting and editing audio in digital domain wouldn't mean as much loss of a sound quality as I thought? I have the same question...what is a half track? If I understand correctly, you're saying that recording and mixing in a computer would be OK, as long as I record the final mix onto a tape?

I appreciate everyone's help very much...

 

[The Ghost of FM]

Ghost, I'm not sure what you mean by "existing multi-track environment" and "half track stereo". I don't have any multi-track at this point.

My apologies. I was under the impression you had some form of recording equipment when I looked at your list of gear. I guess it's time for a new prescription!

OK, so, you have your stated gear and you play it live along with sequenced parts. Do you rap as well? Have backing vocals/stabs/dueling MCs? If so, in analog, an 8 track reel to reel ought to cover you being able to lay down a stereo bed of your rhythm track off your existing gear and that would leave 6 tracks left over for adding vocals and any other effects you wanted to add to the production.

If your needing to chop that up, move parts around, copy, paste and so on, a digital recording medium might be best for the sake of editing and in that case, there is a multitude of software and hardware solutions to consider and of which I am not qualified to tell you which to pick.

Once you get the multi-track software/gear, my previous advice still stands.

A Half track is a stereo reel to reel recorder that uses half of the width of the tape for each channel of sound, hence the term; Half track, stereo.

Consumer/home use reel to reels were quarter track stereo, meaning, you had two sets of stereo tracks on the width of the tape. A side A and a side B, just like a cassette. Half track, stereo means you don't flip the tape, unless you want to hear your stuff back-wards?

Cheers!

 

[Outlaws]

Outlaws, so you're saying that moving, pasting and editing audio in digital domain wouldn't mean as much loss of a sound quality as I thought? I have the same question...what is a half track? If I understand correctly, you're saying that recording and mixing in a computer would be OK, as long as I record the final mix onto a tape?

I don't think any engineer, no matter how good or famous could tell if something was copied and pasted in the digital domain. (If it was sent out converters and back in maybe, but thats not copy and paste)

To be honest, I seriously would just go digital for the sake of cost and ease of use. All these beats now a days are done digitally. ie A real instrument sampled to a sampler (which is digital) and then either layed to a expensive 2" tape machine, or sent directly to a computer for mixing and overdubbing of vocals and other instruments.

 

[Zobi]

Ghost, I have this little "theory". Could you tell me if it makes sense to work this way or if there are better ways to achieve what I want?

OK, here goes. Let's say I record all the instruments that will be in a song onto a tape. For example, I record 4 bars. That way, every single sound will have the analog sound/warmth. After that I transfer that into a software program where I copy and paste, mute, chop until I have a complete song. Then I could either:

1) mix in the software and than transfer back onto a tape for mastering

or

2) I would go back to tape after the song is complete and mix in the analog domain.

Another way I though about would be skipping the first step - recording onto a tape. I would record directly into a software program, compose the song and then transfer to a tape. What I don't know is if I'd loose any of the "fat sound" this way, since the initial analog step would be missing.

Does what I'm asking make any sense? Is there a difference in the sound depending on where in the process recording on a tape takes place?

Thanks so much for your help.......

 

[Zobi]

Outlaws, I see what you mean. It would definitely be a lot more convenient to keep everything digital.

All these beats now a days are done digitally.

And that's the problem. I don't like the way hip hop music sounds these days and I'm talking about professional recordings done on very expensive ProTools rigs. I just don't like the sound.....

I really don't know much about this stuff, but basically I found out that most of my favorite albums from early to mid 90's were recorded analog. I'm not trying to say that it's better than digital, I just know what I personally prefer. But, the cost of those 2" machines is out of my budget, plus I don't have the knowledge to operate and maintain them anyway.

Speaking of digital, I read that to "warm up" the sound, some people use Empirical Labs Fatso Jr. Would using this device make up for "real analog tape" in the final mix?

Thanks for your tips.....

 

[Outlaws]

And that's the problem. I don't like the way hip hop music sounds these days and I'm talking about professional recordings done on very expensive ProTools rigs. I just don't like the sound.....

I full understand what you mean. A lot of people don't want to sound like the current trend, but still want top notch quality. I was refering to the ease of obtaining quality...nothing to do with current trend of "sound".

I really don't know much about this stuff, but basically I found out that most of my favorite albums from early to mid 90's were recorded analog.

...because that is all they had.

I'm not trying to say that it's better than digital, I just know what I personally prefer. But, the cost of those 2" machines is out of my budget, plus I don't have the knowledge to operate and maintain them anyway.

All the more reason to do go digital. That 2" sound is the "sound" of analog.



If you are dead set on analog, then maybe make you beat, send it to a 2 track deck - to obtain a quality tape sound, and then send it back to the computer for any vocal overdubs, or if you sent it to tape with vocals already done, either send it back to the comuter to be later sent off for mastering, or just use the tape to be mastered from.

 

[Zobi]

I'm not dead set on analog, but seems like all the recordings I like have analog tape involved in them. That's why I was asking about the Fatso Jr. If I can achieve the sound I like with digital tools only, I'm OK with that.

You said that the "analog sound" I refer to is the sound of 2" tape and anything less probably won't give me as satisfactory results. That's basically what I was asking in the first post of this thread...... to achieve this sound, do I really need the high end 2" machines?

I think I read somewhere that Public Enemy used MSR-16 on their first few albums.

 

[Outlaws]

I'm not dead set on analog, but seems like all the recordings I like have analog tape involved in them. That's why I was asking about the Fatso Jr. If I can achieve the sound I like with digital tools only, I'm OK with that.

You said that the "analog sound" I refer to is the sound of 2" tape and anything less probably won't give me as satisfactory results. That's basically what I was asking in the first post of this thread...... to achieve this sound, do I really need the high end 2" machines?

I think I read somewhere that Public Enemy used MSR-16 on their first few albums.

There is no boubt that a 2" machine will have a more level high end EQ to it, but the whole point of the 2" is that it eliminates almost all aspects of "tape" distortion and noise making the signal as pristine and clean as possible...ala what digital is all about. But it still does have a high end roll off that some would call more "apeasing to the ears".

That being said, I am sure that a 1" 8 track machine, or even a 1" 16 track machine, would probably give you sufficient results if the sound you are after was infact recorded on a 1/2" 16 track machine.

Many of the early beats of bands like the Beastie Boys used harsh sounding (because it was primative) digital beat machines that came to life after being sent to tape, causing the high end to rolled off very smoothly.

If you have you shit together and already written songs, then recording to an analog source might work for you. But if you plan on working the songs out on tape, then tracking to digital might save you an arm and a leg on tape costs.

 

[The Ghost of FM]

I think I read somewhere that Public Enemy used MSR-16 on their first few albums.

I believe MC Hammer also did his Too Legit to Quit album on the same machine.

Honestly, I don't know what to advise you on as I am not familiar with the production methods of the music you want to produce so I don't feel comfortable giving you any further advice. On top of that, others here are touting the virtues of 2" analog as the only acceptable level of quality and I disagree as I stated earlier and don't have the energy to get into a mental wrestling match with a person who doesn't own a 2" himself.

Perhaps some others can step in here?

I'm out.

Cheers!

 

[Outlaws]

don't have the energy to get into a mental wrestling match with a person who doesn't own a 2" himself.

Fair enough.

But I just don't want to see someone go out and get involved in something that will produce a sound they "think" they can get, then have them find out that the sound is not what they expected.

 

[The Ghost of FM]

I just don't want to see someone go out and get involved in something that will produce a sound they "think" they can get, then have them find out that the sound is not what they expected.

Well, that's a different topic all together.

Taken to realistic extremes, I don't think anyone gets the sound they imagine versus the sound they end producing on their own.

As well, ultimately, whether you have a top end digital or analog setup, the gear itself is no guarantee of any particular level of sound quality.

I've seen guys with super high-end gear and put out totally rotten mixes and the opposite example as well of guys with a cheap, second hand Portastudios putting out incredible results.

In the end, gear is like paint and brushes; what you do with them is up to you.

Cheers!

 

[Herm]

Ok I dont see any reason why you cant get the kind of results you want with a Tascam 34 b 4 track or a 38 8 track with dbx.
They are still plentiful and would probably get the results you want.

For those that dont get it and love to come to the analog forum and try and convert and corrupt somebodys mind into buying some digital crap, that for us in the analog world still have no use for, need to go hang out on the computer forums and waist space there.
If he can not afford 2 inch 24 track (which would be a waist) of money for what he is doing then he cant afford the high end digital stuff either.
If Im not wrong most of the hip hop or rap people use stuff like 727 avalon preamps and 6500.00 sony microphones to do their stuff. For what reason I dont know you would have to ask them. Chances are its a monkey see monkey do thing.


Key words here is ANALOG ONLY forum!

 

[Outlaws]

waist space

Okay tons of fun.

I didn't mean to waste your time.

 

[Zobi]

Herm, thanks for your advice.

Guys, I'd still like to hear what you think about these potential methods I asked about earlier......

1) I record all the instruments that will be in a song onto a tape. For example, I record 4 bars. That way, every single sound will have the analog sound/warmth. After that I transfer that into a software program where I copy and paste, mute, chop until I have a complete song. Then I could either mix in the software and than transfer back onto a tape for mastering or I would go back to tape after the song is complete and mix in the analog domain. Would mixing in software or in analog domain make a difference (sonically)?

2) Another way I though about would be skipping the first step - recording onto a tape. I would record directly into a software program, compose the song and then transfer to a tape. What I don't know is if I'd loose any of the "fat sound" this way, since the initial analog step would be missing.

Does what I'm asking make any sense? Is there a difference in the sound depending on where in the process recording on a tape takes place?

Thanks a lot to everyone for your time and help......