rewind drum motor wonky and low gain on Tascam 38?

[Sonarcade]

thanks for the mixing advice! I'm kind of glad that you bring this point up without my asking if the volume's too low. I was thinking that I was crazy or something. This has actually been my biggest issue. I first attributed this low volume to crappy equipment lacking the proper headroom but then there's someone in here who recorded a song that sounds pretty hot and was recorded in his mic input on his laptop! So I'm having doubts about the problems coming from limitations of my equipment and I feel as if it's now placed squarely on my technique.

When working digitally, using Ableton Live or any other DAWish program, I immediately head for the compressor, add it to the master track and adjust the ratio so the meters are about at -0.3 dB. I don't know if that's enough information, seeing as how I recall running into different units of dB, but I figure that there's some standardized unit that applies across DAW programs. Even then, however, the graphic EQ on winamp when playing back tracks seems to be on a lowish end, especially with higher frequencies. And of course, more imporantly than "seeing" it is the fact that it sounds pretty low. Although I'm some of this may be tied to a flattening of the dynamics from compression, I think there's something else more crucial afoot.

you can see why I looked to the analog realm to solve these problems as I was firmly convinced that it's all digital's fault and that analog allows for things to simply work out out-of-the-box. But then, I realize that somewhere in my recording path, it's inevitable that I'm going to have to hit those A/D converters if I want to distribute my music in an unwieldy and 21st century manner. So I'm back at square one.

*shakes fist*

 

[A Reel Person]

Square one? I'm not sure.

I think at the outset I'd want to record to the 38 while hitting "0VU" as consistently as possible. +3 peaks are okay, for sure.

When mixing down to 'puter,... assuming you're mixing off the 38 thru "a hardware mixer" (such as the M30) down to stereo,... I'd take the mixdown signal and connect in stereo to "the input" (sound card or interface stereo line in), and push levels up to the red without undue clipping, that is to say not slamming the top. Just pinging the top of the red meters on DAW software is often what I find as good levels. The simulated VU meters are so fast registering the dynamic peaks it seems like you can hit the top just a hair and get away with it. I like the WMP "scope" visual, which is an oscilloscope trace that reveals square tops on waves from clipping, as well as visual cues about amplitude and high frequency content. Your test mix was rather low in amplitude, being visualized as very small and tame looking waves. I have recordings, f/i, which push the wave peaks much higher on the scale,... point being that I'd consider that a function of pushing the master mix buss up toward "0VU" in more or less analog fashion,... just tickling the peaks e'ry now & then.

I also feel the most obvious problem in your case is feeling compelled to put compression on the mix bus. I'm not on board with that. I recommend mixing in analog down to your ol'puter in stereo with zero crap on the mix bus, i.e., in an effort to capitalize on the entire dynamic range of the digital domain.

I get my best sounding mixdown in the analog realm then slam the mix bus as hot and dynamically as I dare, just short of squaretops on wave peaks. Get yourself off efx, which most people use like crack.

The 38 is quite dynamic, if you'll let it be.

You heard it here first.

 

[Sonarcade]

Unfortunately, the VU meters don't seem to respond while either recording and playing back so I've just been hitting them as hard as the preamps allow me to without clipping. I've definitely been cutting down on effects as much as possible, especially seeing as how I realize how much I've ironically been using effects to emulate the "natural" sounds of the Tascam 38.

As for keeping the mixdown track clean during the dubbing process, I'm not too sure if we're talking about the same thing. Just so I know we're on the same page, I was talking about adding compression to the mixdown track in Ableton Live after it had already been dubbed from the 38. Perhaps this is also something you're not on board with either -- which I can understand. But I think I've developed this technique as a way to remedy my low-level-problem. Perhaps it then boils down to simply manually working with the levels or even automating the level changes so that the peak is tickled, as you state (fyi I'm stealing that phrase when referring to optimal level readings from now on).

Also, what does "f/i" mean?

 

[sweetbeats]

f/I means for instance.

If your pinch roller was at all sticky when you were cleaning it, you must get a new one. Get it direct from Tascam. That is actually the cjeapest route for new.

Use 91% or higher isopropyl alcohol that is anhydrous (has no water in it...look at the ingredients to be sure).

Make sure you 'normalize' your master .wav file.

What are you using in your signal path on the way to tape?

 

[A Reel Person]

F/I,... for instance...

Yeah. I think the 38 can handle avg levels to "0" and peaks to "+3" without a problem. It's a little harder to gauge how the soundcard input levels should run, but I try (again) to hit it about "0" and just "tickling" the peaks a little bit is okay. I generally don't use any limiting or efx, on the master buss especially, with exception of a guitar track with distortion-box or run-of-the-mill thing like that. F/I, my sound is a little more stripped, natural and direct than anything else. I like to push the dynamics of the digital mixdown medium, soundcard or interface should give you about 100db raw amplitude on the input, and that's good. Low levels are typically not my problem, but for a low track or two I just push up the fader. If the entire mix is low, then to ride the gain up higher. YMMV

 

[RRuskin]

Depending on desired/need headroom, a 0vu analog reading should equal somewhere between -18 to -12 on the digital scale.

 

[A Reel Person]

Sure,...

I know that's the textbook reading of it, but our friend is battling a low-gain problem, from end to end, and based on that clip alone I'd agree.

At the very least, start by pushing the recording levels on the TAS-38 to "0VU" avg. Then [IMO] you need to scrap the comp/limiter on the mix buss and experiment getting max gain before distortion on the stereo mixdown-to-puter step.

I don't think all cheapo built in sound cards have the same headroom or resilience to slamming the inputs, so my experience is you have to test it out a bit and size it up. That's based on my usage of 3 different ol'puters for mixdown,... with none of them accept the signal levels just the same.

If you're mixing into a USB (TAS-US122) or FireWire (TAS-FireOne) sound interface,... I'd expect one of these types of interfaces to accept hotter levels with better fidelity than the stock soundcard in the typical 'puter, in general.

That's a lot of words describing one thing: you have to experiment a bit with levels to get it right.

 

[RRuskin]

I know that's the textbook reading of it, but our friend is battling a low-gain problem, from end to end, and based on that clip alone I'd agree.

At the very least, start by pushing the recording levels to "0VU" avg. Then you need to scrap the comp/limiter on the mix buss and experiment getting max gain before distortion on the stereo mixdown-to-puter.

I don't think all cheapo built in sound cards have the same headroom or resilience to slamming the inputs, so my experience is you have to test it out a bit and size it up. That's based on my usage of 3 different ol'puters for mixdown,... none of them accept the signal levels just the same.

If you're mixing into a USB or FireWire sound interface,... I'd expect one of these interfaces to accept hotter levels with better fidelity than the stock soundcard in the typical 'puter, in general.

That's a lot of words describing one thing: you have to experiment a bit with levels to get it right.

Has this machine been calibrated? Do we know what tape he is using? It kinda sounds to me like he is flying blind from one end of his chain to the other.

 

[Sonarcade]

sweetbeats - I think I'll look into buying a new pinch roller after all. And thanks for the anhydrous tip-off. Just out of curiosity, what're the effects of water on my 38? I haven't tried normalizing. Is that somewhat similar to using a compressor as a limiter and ramp up the overall gain? My signal path is like so:

to tape: step 1: Rode NT1 mic -> X-Station preamps -> Tascam 38 (record)
to the computer: step 2: Tascam 38 (playback) -> X-Station preamps/AD converters and Ableton Live

a reel person - in a way, it seems that the VU readings on the Tascam 38 itself aren't as critical as the meter readings on my DAW, if we're looking at it in terms of my ability to make changes. That is to say the bottleneck or stumbling block is my preamp's headroom, not the 38, so when I'm monitoring what's being driven through the pre, I already know how hard I can slam the sound. I've never experienced the Tascam 38 itself to be the source of undue clipping -- but I could be wrong.

And then there's also the issue of my VU meters on the 38 not working, which makes it impossible to see whether the levels are anywhere near 0 or +3.

And not only is the headroom on my preamps an issue, the headroom of the converters also is my limiting point. But then again, I've heard people producing really loud and clear tracks using the mic input jack on their laptops! So I'm a bit confused here when it comes to pinpointing exactly whether the lion's share of error comes from improper technique or inadequate gear. I'm personally more inclined to lean toward the former.

 

[sweetbeats]

Sonarcade,

Water on ferrous metal (your heads) = bad inany amount...oxidation (read 'rust')...not that you use cheapy hydrous iso alcohol one time and your heads are gonna look like a golden retriever, but its just a bad idea.

No familiar with the X-Station. I'll familiarize myself, but two questions I have are:

1. Do the pre's have direct-outs so that your mic to X-Station to 38 doesn't actually include an unneccesary A/D/A conversion?

2. Does the X-Station feature lin inputs? That's what you should be using at the 38 to X-Station to DAW step, not the mic pre...

Normalizing just takes an audio file and raises the entire level across the board to '0'...so if your peaks are at -3 or something it will raise the entire file by +3. Not a big deal in your case since your peaks are at -0.3, but I thought I'd mention it.

 

[A Reel Person]

Mmmm,...

I think the X-station is the weak link. I'm also concerned that you can't deflect the 38 meters on recording or playback, but the preamp is clipping. There must be a mismatch there. The 38 is not known as a source of undue clipping.

I'm old school on this matter, but I'd recommend a "standard" recording mixer to interface to the 38. The M30 is the minimum of what I'd recommend.

 

[sweetbeats]

Okay...

I reviewed the key features of the X-Station.

Dave (A Reel Person) is right.

Sonarcade, the problem is that while the X-Station has pre's in it, there is no way to take the preamplified signal and regulate it. Your level to tape is limited by the head-amp itself. I traditional mixer takes the preamp (head-amp) stage and puts it through another amplifier stage typically controlled by the fader on a mixer...you have no fader. The level you are sending to tape is weak, dependent entirely on the gain knob of your preamp.

You are dealing with the same dilemma that lead me to seek out a traditional analog mixer.

Having head-amp gain-stage alone is fine if you are going straight to digital. This is what the X-Station was designed for, not for driving an analog tape deck.

 

[Sonarcade]

thanks dave and sweetbeats!

but I'm guessing that by "traditional" or "standard" you're not talking about a Mackie 1202 or a Behringer Eurorack, but a Tascam M-somethin' somethin'. I actually just missed out on a M-216 due to a guy not willing to sell it for less than $100. There was also a semi-functional M-50 on sale for $50 that I missed by a few hours. This collecting-gear business is harder than I thought!

Also, while I understand how the X-Station's preamps may not be up to powering the signal hard enough for the Tascam 38, I don't understand how the preamps do an adequate job when going straight to digital. How does this work? While this question comes from my own curiosity, I have a feeling that the answer to this question will be vital information when selecting my new mixer.

 

[sweetbeats]

By traditional mixer I just mean an analog mixer...something opposed to your current setup that has a head-amp stage and a secondary gain stage (the 'fader').

1202 qualifies, but I will say that in the long-run you will be less frustrated having something with enough inputs and busses for your 8-track deck. The reason a lot of folks around here use the older Tascam mixers is because the are pennies on the dollar these days, loaded feature-wise (relatively speaking), and are of good quality. Something with either 8 busses, or more likely in your case look for something that has at least 8 channel strips with direct outs on each channel (that takes care of your 38 inputs) and ideally channel strips that have a switcheable line input or dedicated tape return input on each channel. This avoids repatching and makes monitoring a breeze. 1202 will work, but IIRC you'll only be able to 4 channels to the 38 at a time using master outs and aux sends and then you'll have to repatch for mixing down from the deck or for monitoring during overdubs.

On the other question, digital is mathematically limited to 0dB...analog can push far beyond that with the artifacts being third-order harmonic distortion which tendsto be pleasing to the ear. Head amps tend to drive a mic signal to unity gain, I.e. '0'...set the mic gain and you're already at the level for digital.

 

[A Reel Person]

My point...

My point is (besides echoing most of what sweetbeats just said),...

A proper "recording" mixer is equipped with a dedicated Cue (Tape-Cue or Submix) section with channels that are switchable between Tape and Input monitoring. This feature adequately isolates the Tape-Rtn section from the Main Mix section while listening to both in the two-way audio traffic scenario for overdubbing.

Bigger (modern) mixers might suffice by giving you adequate # of channels and Aux's to "fudge" proper monitoring together, which is often doable but not optimal. Smaller mixers (1202) will not.

Isolation between Main Mix and Tape Rtn channels for purposes of overdubbing is essential to prevent "track bleed" (inadvertent track bouncing) and inadvertent feedback loops thru the record amps of the 38 (damaging to equipment and hearing).

I'd disagree that an 8-track needs an 8-buss mixer, lest you're going for uber large setups and live-to-8-track (8-simul) recording.

Note: 8-buss configuration is only sensible on mixers of 8-channels or more, (midsize & bigger mixers), though you find the Tascam 388 is 8x8, which is premium FWIW. That's mostly because the 388 is self-contained (interally routed & patched) and is optimized for 8-simul recording.

Most 1-man bands who overdub tracks in layers can get away with an 8-Channel/4-Buss or even at worst 2-Buss, (as long as it has a Cue section). 4-Buss mixers are what was traditionally paired with 8-tracks like the Tascam 38. 4-Buss supports 4-track-simul in buss mode, and would employ Direct Outs for >4-simul (like live-to-8).

The many examples of 8-channel/4-buss mixers would be the M30, M35, M308, Model 3, Model 5 and a host of others.

Another key feature of a well designed recording mixer is that they are optimized to reroute patching scenarios between primary tracking , overdubbing and remix with the press of a button or flip of a switch. Mixers that are live sound or FOH mixers typically won't do this or suit this function without numerous repatching of cables between phases of tracking. Switch based routing, and the Cue/Submix section (which provides isolation and also reduces repatching),... I think are essential.

This stated preference for a "proper recording mixer" is based on assessing the features and capabilities you'd need for typical 8-track recording setups, and not just 'cause they're old, we're gear snobs, we're set in our ways or just that we like old stuff.

Having used this (38 & 4-buss recording mixer) gear for decades, I feel pretty strongly about what a properly equipped recording setup consists of,... and many off-the-shelf mixers of today don't have the key features I'd look for, or they're almost-fit and can be kludged together to work but are cumbersome in operation.

Implied here is also having a baseline minimum of 8 Tape Returns, for properly handling the Tape Rtn function used in overdubbing (Cue) and a "proper" final mixdown.

To use the Novation X-station as mic preamp feeding tape inputs is marginal, but as a line mixer for 8x2 mixdown is totally inadequate. Never mind the mismatch in levels.

Hope that helps.

 

[Sonarcade]

Ah. Thanks for the elaboration on what you two meant by standard and traditional. Judging from the tone of the responses, mainly Dave's, it seems I might've come off as being wary of some of the advice offered with regard to buying an analog mixer.

I only brought up the 1202 because I found a slightly defective one for $50 (solo doesn't work) and this is a bargain compared to some of the console Tascam mixers I've been seeing in my LA craigslist as mentioned above. If anything, the prices I've seen them for either makes me question my own assumptions of a reasonable price or sweetbeat's definition of "pennies to the dollar." I don't know if I'm being too stubborn with setting the price ceiling as $100 and that for an M-50. I think I may still have an opportunity to buy the 216 for $100 but am wondering, again, if that's too high for what it is.

But as sweetbeats mentioned, I can already see how much of a pain in the ass rerouting all the cables for every function is going to be when using a 1202. Ideally, I'd want a mixer with at least 4 direct outs per channel, but now I'm in the stage of balancing my recording needs with my budget issues. It seems like a silly thing to get hung up on since if it doesn't work out, I can always resell it, but the last thing I want is to get caught with my pants down for paying 4-fold of what the mixer ought to go for due to this revitalized market for analog gear.

if there's a mixer that's comparable to the Tascam M-series that is also widely available for a reasonable price, I'd love to get your $.02 on it. Thanks again.

 

[cjacek]

You have to realize that a lot of the TASCAM mixers were really expensive in their day and that you're getting them 10cents or less on the dollar, when you add inflation and so on..... Also, something like an M216 would cost several thousand dollars today, or something which contained its features, so if you find one for 100 dollars... that's cheap man.. especially if in good shape.

 

[sweetbeats]

+1 to everything Reel and cjacek said.

Dave, FWIW, my comment about 8-buss was based on he scenario where there are no direct outs on the channel strips (basically saying that for ideal flexibility with an 8-track recorder, you ought to have, in some fashion, 8 distinct secondary gain stages whether its 4-buss with 4 auxes or 8 mix busses or whatever)

Sonarcade, nothing new today like the Tascam mixers anywhere near the price. They are a freaky bargain.

 

[A Reel Person]

Yeah Beatz,...

I may have just skimmed that section!

I basically agree with you, 'cause (I know) u know ur sh!t......

However, I'm not totally onboard with just feeding every (tape/recorder) input with a (mixer strip) Direct-Out and calling it a day. I think there's a knowledge gap with Newbies and some mid-level home rec'ers as to the grace in production and utility of "Buss-Assign" architecture. To assign every single discrete source to it's own track is not always a practical use of tracks,... which is nearly negligible in the DAW, but becomes an issue in the fixed-# of tracks you get with an analog recorder.

F/I, if I were recording electric guitar clean or with distortion, I'd plug the guitar directly into the board, EQ and set up that channel. Then, I'd use a close mic technique on the body of the guitar, at moderate distance and high gain, to pick up the snap of the strings and pick. Then, I'd mix the two sounds together to taste and record that down to 1 track, (analog). It's not practical for me to record the Line-guitar and the Mic-guitar to 2 separate tracks. The philosophy of "will mix them together in Post or track-bounce them down",... (the philosophy in DAW recording),... is really not a good or practical idea in analog. Therefore, you have Buss-Assignment as your primary architecture between your mixer and recorder. Not only is Buss-Assignment (of channels to tracks) more practical [IMO], but it's also easier to switch and route things about. Easy to assign any Input Channel to any Buss, and then to any Track, pretty much with the press of the button. Repatching is kept to a minimum.

I understand, too, that Direct-Out is a patch point that cuts out further circuitry downstream, and therefore could be assumed or said to be a cleaner path, but with that in consideration I still feel that Buss architecture wins on functionality in a practical sense.

With a 4-buss mixer, it limits you to 4-tracks you can record simultaneously of discrete sources to discrete tracks, so would be to an advantage (necessity) using Direct-Outs for any number greater than 4-simul, (or whatever your max buss count is).

That's a philosophical issue, I guess, so there's no single right answer. Mixers and recorders like this give you many, many ways to patch different scenarios. That's the fun part of it.

I'm sorry, I didn't want to sound cantakorous, or whatever. Despite being old, set in my ways & preferring certain older gear, the gear I select has a hard and fast set of requirements to meet before I consider it adequate, in purely technical terms related to the above issues. Buss Assign and Cue, nice EQ, Aux system or patch points, dedicated Tape Rtns, modern switchability of routing on the top panel. Stuff like that is important to me. Unfortunately, the modern crop of mixers don't seem to have e'thing I need on that list, or so I've found with the limited number of newer mixers I've scoped. On the other hand, this comprehensive list of things adds up to e'thing the "classic" Tascam recording mixer used to be, through those recent years past now known as nostalgic days of the 80's "vintage" gear. Heh, heh.

Sorry again, I felt there was a knowledge gap for many people seeking a mixer for recording. You can record with nearly any mixer, but not all mixers are recording mixers! There's a difference, as I've elaborated above in so many words.

My mind set on recording may be old school techniques based on using old school gear. It's in me. I'm just programmed that way. DAW and Analog recording philosophies differ in certain ways for certain reasons. There's a knowledge gap for Newbies in bridging the gap from DAW back to Analog. You don't always do things the same between Analog and Digital recording, nor should you, and for [IMO] good or technically solid reasons. Not just because someone does or doesn't think "old school", [as I do]. 'Nuff said.

Peace, Love and Happiness to all!

 

[sweetbeats]

Dave, that rocks.

Your response rocks.

Very, very well stated and I don't think/feel you were over the top at all.

u know ur sh!t

Right back atcha with a double helping...um...you know what I mean.

I think it is really important what you said because I have stepped into the more traditional methods from the digital/DAW world...multi-sourcing one voice/instrument and mixing it to a buss pre recorder is not illogical or dubious, but I don't have a lot of practice at it, as not many would who have grown up as amatuers in a digital world so your wisdom is great.

I have managed mid-scale sound on an 40 x 8 board and we use those subgroups to the hilt...that's where I'm familiar, but that is a whole different application than studio recording and so you are making a connection for me to how this stuff was/is/can be/should be utilized. In recording

Keep it up!