Tascam 488 for "tape sound" or "analog mix"?

TalismanRich said:
You might want to check the prices of tape as well as the machines. The Tascam 38 uses 1/2" tape at 15IPS. A single reel of RTM900, 10.5" reel is €118 or about $150. That will give you 30 minutes of recording time. The days of grabbing a reel of tape for $25 are long gone.
Click to expand...

You are right.
I really don´t need 8 tracks.
Is there any unit reel to reel you would sugest that could be good for a studio, I mean more pro, 15 ips for example, instead the Akais..,
The man here that have the Akais has a Revox A77 15 ips.
suggestions?

I could stay with 2 tracks, with a unit that would worth passing the audio through it better than a UAD tape plugin..., not sure if that exist, or if I should need to buy a real Studer A800?
 
lagoausente2 said:
Hello everyone.

I have a good studio with good preamps, Mytek Ad converter, and hardware multitrack digital recorders (Yamaha AW4416). Prefer hardware over DAW.

I found a Tascam 488 near my location for near similar price of the Korg D16 sale, so I´m considering if could sale the Korg and get the 488 to get another "different" thing..,

I´m confused about the "tape" recording thing because there are threads regarding tape portastudios vs DAW and most say the DAW as an update, no brain about the sound...
Click to expand...
The tape sound that would compare to your Apollo Duo Tape Emulators - is not going to be achieved with the 488 - you need an actual reel to reel like a Studer Two Track or some such thing.
 
Papanate said:
The tape sound that would compare to your Apollo Duo Tape Emulators - is not going to be achieved with the 488 - you need an actual reel to reel like a Studer Two Track or some such thing.
Click to expand...


Thank you, already discussed that, the 488 was the title.

I´m after a reel to reel option. Have asked about the Akai 4000 series, the Gx4000d.

But I´m considering a more "pro" option, 15 ips capable. Considering a Revox A77 that seems to record 15 ips.

But may be any other models I still don´t know. 2 channel should be enough and capability of sync desirable... ideas?
Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Back in the day, either Ampex or Revox were the pro machines that I would see. They were in studios and radio stations. The key point would be to make sure the machine is in tip-top shape. Rob recently had a thread documenting his adventure in finding a reel to reel machine.


Depending on what you're really wanting, you might be able to get it with a basic Sony, Akai, or Teac consumer recorder. I find that "analog sound" is just a catch phrase that covers lots of ground. It helps to know what characteristics you are seeking, Tape compression, the bottom you get from the tape bump, the "roundness" of the sound, the "glue" that binds things together. I hear those terms a lot. 40 years ago, I never heard anyone talking about "glue" but it's all over the internet today.

People today seem to be recording things much more forward, brighter and crisper than they did years ago, maybe because the equipment can handle things pretty much transparently up to that magical 0dB mark. At +1dB, things go to hell in a handbasket and start to sound nasty. Tape has more gradual distortion and frequency response changes as the level gets higher, which is today's euphonic coloration. I think that's what UAD and other try to emulate with their plug ins. The problem is that 10 different tape deck designs will have 10 different sets of parameters due to head design, tapes speed, electronics, eq curves and bias settings.. The plug-in either needs to emulate those differences, or it becomes a "generic sound" which may or may not match up to your particular target tape deck.

In the end, it's a "try it and see if it works for you" deal. Maybe take one of your recordings and have someone run it though a tape machine, back into a digital audio file and see if it gives you what you want. It would be perfect if you could do that BEFORE you drop 2Gs on a deck and some tapes. Are the machines you are considering local?
 
TalismanRich said:
Back in the day, either Ampex or Revox were the pro machines that I would see. They were in studios and radio stations. The key point would be to make sure the machine is in tip-top shape. Rob recently had a thread documenting his adventure in finding a reel to reel machine.


Depending on what you're really wanting, you might be able to get it with a basic Sony, Akai, or Teac consumer recorder. I find that "analog sound" is just a catch phrase that covers lots of ground. It helps to know what characteristics you are seeking, Tape compression, the bottom you get from the tape bump, the "roundness" of the sound, the "glue" that binds things together. I hear those terms a lot. 40 years ago, I never heard anyone talking about "glue" but it's all over the internet today.

People today seem to be recording things much more forward, brighter and crisper than they did years ago, maybe because the equipment can handle things pretty much transparently up to that magical 0dB mark. At +1dB, things go to hell in a handbasket and start to sound nasty. Tape has more gradual distortion and frequency response changes as the level gets higher, which is today's euphonic coloration. I think that's what UAD and other try to emulate with their plug ins. The problem is that 10 different tape deck designs will have 10 different sets of parameters due to head design, tapes speed, electronics, eq curves and bias settings.. The plug-in either needs to emulate those differences, or it becomes a "generic sound" which may or may not match up to your particular target tape deck.

In the end, it's a "try it and see if it works for you" deal. Maybe take one of your recordings and have someone run it though a tape machine, back into a digital audio file and see if it gives you what you want. It would be perfect if you could do that BEFORE you drop 2Gs on a deck and some tapes. Are the machines you are considering local?
Click to expand...

Thank your for your reply,

They are in my country, not local in the sense I can go and travel myself. Can see feedback and videos. They are from 600km to 1200km from me.. all in Spain.

The man that has the Akais, has one Revox A77, that is factory high speed. (7 and 15). But from what I can see, seems to record 2 tracks like Akai. He say there is not really difference between the Akai and Revox to justify the price diference (around 200 euro more the Revox)

All units this man have are fully tested and revised, but they are "consumer".

On the other hand, there are two Tascam eith track , Tascam 38, and a tascam Tsr-8, more pricey. Have no asked the sellers yet. The Tascam 38 auction say need mechanism adjustment, the Tsr-8 say its perfectly ok but not cheap really.

The issue is that, it should desirable for me: 4 tracks or more, should allow me to sync the unit. Using 3-4 track for sync and 1-2 for audio should be enough.

I feel that a real tape, seem to feel more "real" than a plugin, like this example

Maybe my UAD plugins sound better than that one, but still feel that a "real thing" sounds more "real" than a plugin.. maybe I´m wrong.

In the end is all about money and options. Akai seems ok for the price, around 350 eur. But 2 track, no sync, so couldn´t use for live tracking (as said, should need to adjust each recorded track position because of the playback head delay).

Having sync should allow to record on the tape in sync, than record to the digital recorder in time without extra editing work, but I should need more than 2 channels. Akai don´t allow that. Must reverse the tape.

Tascam 8 track units, should allow me sync, price is 1250 eur, that´s quite money for "trying".
I guess if I´m missing any intermediate candidates, that could record 4 tracks forward with good quality, and no so high price..,
 
One thing that I find funny about this "realism" from tape is that in the 80's there was a lot of work done with Direct To Disc, just to get rid of all the stuff that tape introduced. The point was to eliminate as much as possible between the microphone and the lathe, just to increase the realism of the sound. Some of those direct to disc records sounded absolutely superb, but the problem was that the program material was often several steps below par. It was a great sounding recording of a mediocre performance.

Re: the comparison on the video, what I heard was:

The original mix is lower in average level. If the meters are peaking the same or higher, it's purely transients. It's nothing that proper compressor and limiter shouldn't be able to fix.

Tape Plugin: Compressing the signal but the top end is really hot. I would be grabbing the eq in about 5 seconds after it started. The most obvious thing is the guitar parts are clearly louder. Hi hats are irritating.

Tape Bounce: The highs are rolling off, which gives it a less aggressive sound than the plug-in. The compression has raised the average level and brought up the quiet parts. The guitar parts are hotter than the original mix, but it has a gritty sound to me which I didn't really like.

There's another comparison that was done by Produce Like A Pro where they compare a digital to a tape. Things are much closer, but I clearly hear that low end bump up on the tape. It reminds be a bit of the days when stereo receivers had "loudness" buttons that were suppose to compensate for the Fletcher Munson effect that happened when the volume was turned down. Instead, I knew lots of guys who just turned it up loud and then hit the loudness button to pump up the bass. It becomes less about what is real or accurate, and more about impact and punch, having more than the other guy. You got 8" woofers... I got 15" woofers.

It is pretty well known that something that sounds louder is usually judged to sound "better". It only takes a dB or two.

In the comparison, while the peak levels are the same, the average or LUFS level of the original is a from 2 to 4 points lower. These readings are taken from 10 second portions of the video. Short Term LUFS is 4 points down, Avg Dynamics is 2-3 points down. Yet true peaks are all exactly the same. This is precisely what a compressor does. I didnt bother looking at what the frequency responses are.

alt=


BTW, I decided to make the the level comparisons AFTER I had written the comments above. I wanted to see if the numbers agree with what I heard. I guess I should do the response curves, but its' getting close to dinner time.

In the end, it's like comparing Coke to Pepsi. They're different, absolutely. Is one better than the other? Depends on what you like I guess. I used to take the "Pepsi Challenge", and would dutifully tell them I liked "A" better, and they would smile and reveal that I like PEPSI! Then as we walked away, I would give the Pepsi to my wife and she would give me the Coke. Nothing like skewing the marketing results, just a bit!
 
Last edited:
TalismanRich said:
One thing that I find funny about this "realism" from tape is that in the 80's there was a lot of work done with Direct To Disc, just to get rid of all the stuff that tape introduced. The point was to eliminate as much as possible between the microphone and the lathe, just to increase the realism of the sound. Some of those direct to disc records sounded absolutely superb, but the problem was that the program material was often several steps below par. It was a great sounding recording of a mediocre performance.

Re: the comparison on the video, what I heard was:

The original mix is lower in average level. If the meters are peaking the same or higher, it's purely transients. It's nothing that proper compressor and limiter shouldn't be able to fix.

Tape Plugin: Compressing the signal but the top end is really hot. I would be grabbing the eq in about 5 seconds after it started. The most obvious thing is the guitar parts are clearly louder. Hi hats are irritating.

Tape Bounce: The highs are rolling off, which gives it a less aggressive sound than the plug-in. The compression has raised the average level and brought up the quiet parts. The guitar parts are hotter than the original mix, but it has a gritty sound to me which I didn't really like.

There's another comparison that was done by Produce Like A Pro where they compare a digital to a tape. Things are much closer, but I clearly hear that low end bump up on the tape. It reminds be a bit of the days when stereo receivers had "loudness" buttons that were suppose to compensate for the Fletcher Munson effect that happened when the volume was turned down. Instead, I knew lots of guys who just turned it up loud and then hit the loudness button to pump up the bass. It becomes less about what is real or accurate, and more about impact and punch, having more than the other guy. You got 8" woofers... I got 15" woofers.

It is pretty well known that something that sounds louder is usually judged to sound "better". It only takes a dB or two.

In the comparison, while the peak levels are the same, the average or LUFS level of the original is a from 2 to 4 points lower. These readings are taken from 10 second portions of the video. Short Term LUFS is 4 points down, Avg Dynamics is 2-3 points down. Yet true peaks are all exactly the same. This is precisely what a compressor does. I didnt bother looking at what the frequency responses are.

View attachment 126638

BTW, I decided to make the the level comparisons AFTER I had written the comments above. I wanted to see if the numbers agree with what I heard. I guess I should do the response curves, but its' getting close to dinner time.

In the end, it's like comparing Coke to Pepsi. They're different, absolutely. Is one better than the other? Depends on what you like I guess. I used to take the "Pepsi Challenge", and would dutifully tell them I liked "A" better, and they would smile and reveal that I like PEPSI! Then as we walked away, I would give the Pepsi to my wife and she would give me the Coke. Nothing like skewing the marketing results, just a bit!
Click to expand...
Without getting into the technical stuff......which 1) you covered quite well, and 2) it being something I know little about....

Listening through headphones it was quite obvious the level difference from the raw mix to both the tape emulator plug in and tape versions.

Even with my limited education, of course it’ll sound better louder compared to the quieter raw mix.

In my early days I’d make the mistake of mixing loud. It always sounded great.... until you heard it at a reasonable level.

So, overall I think that video was just bunk.
 
TalismanRich said:
One thing that I find funny about this "realism" from tape is that in the 80's there was a lot of work done with Direct To Disc, just to get rid of all the stuff that tape introduced. The point was to eliminate as much as possible between the microphone and the lathe, just to increase the realism of the sound. Some of those direct to disc records sounded absolutely superb, but the problem was that the program material was often several steps below par. It was a great sounding recording of a mediocre performance.

Re: the comparison on the video, what I heard was:

The original mix is lower in average level. If the meters are peaking the same or higher, it's purely transients. It's nothing that proper compressor and limiter shouldn't be able to fix.

Tape Plugin: Compressing the signal but the top end is really hot. I would be grabbing the eq in about 5 seconds after it started. The most obvious thing is the guitar parts are clearly louder. Hi hats are irritating.

Tape Bounce: The highs are rolling off, which gives it a less aggressive sound than the plug-in. The compression has raised the average level and brought up the quiet parts. The guitar parts are hotter than the original mix, but it has a gritty sound to me which I didn't really like.

There's another comparison that was done by Produce Like A Pro where they compare a digital to a tape. Things are much closer, but I clearly hear that low end bump up on the tape. It reminds be a bit of the days when stereo receivers had "loudness" buttons that were suppose to compensate for the Fletcher Munson effect that happened when the volume was turned down. Instead, I knew lots of guys who just turned it up loud and then hit the loudness button to pump up the bass. It becomes less about what is real or accurate, and more about impact and punch, having more than the other guy. You got 8" woofers... I got 15" woofers.

It is pretty well known that something that sounds louder is usually judged to sound "better". It only takes a dB or two.

In the comparison, while the peak levels are the same, the average or LUFS level of the original is a from 2 to 4 points lower. These readings are taken from 10 second portions of the video. Short Term LUFS is 4 points down, Avg Dynamics is 2-3 points down. Yet true peaks are all exactly the same. This is precisely what a compressor does. I didnt bother looking at what the frequency responses are.

View attachment 126638

BTW, I decided to make the the level comparisons AFTER I had written the comments above. I wanted to see if the numbers agree with what I heard. I guess I should do the response curves, but its' getting close to dinner time.

In the end, it's like comparing Coke to Pepsi. They're different, absolutely. Is one better than the other? Depends on what you like I guess. I used to take the "Pepsi Challenge", and would dutifully tell them I liked "A" better, and they would smile and reveal that I like PEPSI! Then as we walked away, I would give the Pepsi to my wife and she would give me the Coke. Nothing like skewing the marketing results, just a bit!
Click to expand...


I agreen and know that much of the "tape" sound is just a way of "compression". I don´t mean more "realism" because of tape, what I mean, or ask is, "realism" of the emulated "effect" versus a hardware unit.

Of course that mix or any other can be warmed using any compressor, or even other tape simulators. I have both on UAD. Just tape makes a "different way".

If forgeting the loud and adjusting the level, I found the hardware tape mix more natural and sweet sounding, whatever volume adjust on headphones.

Probably that could be donde with any of the UAD tape plugins and the hardware is a waste of time and money.., don´t know, it´s curious that guys like Rob that say is a stupidity buy a reel to reel, have been after one, just nostalgia?

I´m confused, in one side some of you recomend me go to the reel to reel, and on the same time say it´s just a phsycological issue.
 
lagoausente2 said:
I´m confused, in one side some of you recomend me go to the reel to reel, and on the same time say it´s just a phsycological issue.
Click to expand...
We're all different people and have varying opinions. That's the blessing and the curse of being part of a group of people who share a common interest and are trying to reach a common goal ~ but with a few different ways of getting there.
We can all share from our knowledge, experience and ideas but only you know what you like.
 
Well, it is a bit of a conundrum, isn't it? I've got an 40+ yr old stereo reel to reel, and I've actually taken a mix of some of my songs and put them through the tape, just so I can compare it to the original. The reason was curiosity, and then the old "how can you say it, if you never did it" aspect. I hear the same thing, the softening of the top end, the "homogenization" of the sound. For me, it wasn't the right direction. If I had to spend $500 to buy a deck, I wouldn't do it for the sound change. But that's just me. If you are going to split hairs, you can always find SOME difference. I just try not to confuse "different" and "better". You have to decide if you like what you hear.

The main reason I have it is to dub off tapes that were made in the mid 50s to the early 60s, My dad actually recorded the audio from the TV of the JFK funeral. I got to hear myself when I was 1 1/2 yrs old! I got to hear my grandfather who died when I was 3. That, my friend, is irreplaceable. The recordings were made with a salt crystal microphone on a mono tape deck. Quality wasn't the watchword.
 
In a similar vein, I recently watched a video where a fellow compares 4 Stratocasters, a $400 Squier, a $2000 USA, a $5000 Custom Shop and a $60,000 '62 Strat. To me, it's Click Bait. The '62 is NOT a $60,000 guitar. It's a $289 guitar ('62 MSRP) that you could have picked up at most music stores for $230 to $250, with case. Putting it into the inflation calculator, it would be about $2300 guitar in today's world. Of course, in 1962 you were making $1.50 to $2 an hour. Now they want everyone to make $15, so just multiply everything by 10. Nothing really changed. You still need to work a month to buy the standard USA guitar.

Don't let the headlines or someone else's opinion cloud your judgement.
 
Thank your for your feedback, anyway is useful for me to ask from any other ones that have used tape, it makes sense.

I´m looking at a Tascam Tsr-8. Is not that cheap, and is seems to have "it´s" sound. Sync is posible, so could be a better alternative than the 488, seems to use 1/2 tape and 15 ips.
Listening to this video demo :

or this song:

I feel it sounds quite different than a plugin. I should think that less high-fidelity than the consumer Akai Gx4000d, but a nice "mix"..., yes, I suspect TalismanRich you will say that can be done in DAW with some Eq, compression and so on right? I´m not that sure.
For me make the mix sounds bigger, rounder, smooth..

Opinions? waste of money?
 
TalismanRich said:
Well, it is a bit of a conundrum, isn't it? I've got an 40+ yr old stereo reel to reel, and I've actually taken a mix of some of my songs and put them through the tape, just so I can compare it to the original. The reason was curiosity, and then the old "how can you say it, if you never did it" aspect. I hear the same thing, the softening of the top end, the "homogenization" of the sound. For me, it wasn't the right direction. If I had to spend $500 to buy a deck, I wouldn't do it for the sound change. But that's just me. If you are going to split hairs, you can always find SOME difference. I just try not to confuse "different" and "better". You have to decide if you like what you hear.

The main reason I have it is to dub off tapes that were made in the mid 50s to the early 60s, My dad actually recorded the audio from the TV of the JFK funeral. I got to hear myself when I was 1 1/2 yrs old! I got to hear my grandfather who died when I was 3. That, my friend, is irreplaceable. The recordings were made with a salt crystal microphone on a mono tape deck. Quality wasn't the watchword.
Click to expand...
yes.. I can be clearer.., I´m not looking for a tape for making the sound "better" itself.

As exampl, I have a preamp neve clone, that make any sourse sounds big.., I have a Great River Mp2-Nv that makes similar but different flavour, more bright, I found them useful because make vocals and other tracks sound "in front", warm and big. Can be applied to snare, kick, or any track you want to put up in the mix.

Regarding tape, on the video above the one playing distorting guitars, the TSR-8 make those sound nice, a guitar distorsion digitally recordered sound too aggresive, on tape sound big and smooth, right? that´s the purpose, use it for this type of tracks. I suspect a snare should sound bigger, or even the entire drum machine should sound more like "a unit" instead of eight mics through this.. maybe I´m wrong...
 
lagoausente2 said:
Regarding tape, on the video above the one playing distorting guitars, the TSR-8 make those sound nice, a guitar distorsion digitally recordered sound too aggresive, on tape sound big and smooth, right? that´s the purpose, use it for this type of tracks. I suspect a snare should sound bigger, or even the entire drum machine should sound more like "a unit" instead of eight mics through this.. maybe I´m wrong...
Click to expand...

TalismanRich said:
I hear the same thing, the softening of the top end, the "homogenization" of the sound.
Click to expand...
I think we're saying the same thing. You're Pepsi, I'm Coke. (or I'm Bourbon, you're Scotch... I like bourbon! :giggle: )

BTW, A good article that you might like is here: The Unpredictable Joys of Analog Recording.
It shows a bit why you might hear different things with different machines. It's similar to what I mentioned above about "10 different tape deck designs will have 10 different sets of parameters". An Otari might sound different from an Ampex, Studer and a Tascam.
 
I don’t care what’s on paper, the TSR-8 is not “lower fidelity” than the Akai machine. Same track width. Tascam is double the transport speed. Plus onboard dbx. I’m getting really confused because you are all over the place with what you are looking at.

I think you need to step back and answer one question: what is your goal? What are you needing or wanting to accomplish? And then work forward with what equipment or gear addresses that goal.

I’d your goal is just to have fun and experience different gear then just buy something and have some fun. But trying to decide what tape machine based on YouTube videos is, IMHO, silly. Figure out what you are trying to accomplish and then clearly state it here. We can advise from there but you are all over the place.

BTW I appreciate and am enjoying the posts and comments…lots of good perspective and opinions. Maybe mine can be considered among them.
 
There is NO difference in the sound between consumer, prosumer or professional in so many bits of kit. They employ identical physics. In old machines, the differences were real in mechanics, lifespan, durability, repeatability, ease of maintenance, but rarely in any measurable audio quality area. A good example of consumer behaviour was in eq and bias on tape equipment. Users discovered that you could turn the bias knob on replay to the wrong setting and it got brighter, or duller. You could record on the wrong tape with the wrong bias and you’d get a different sound. You could ignore the protesting VU meters and push the tape hard because you liked it. Then, you got a job at the BBC and you adjusted input and output to a test tone, selected the prescribed bias and replay EQ as per the manual, and did it professionally. Push a tape with modified bias current and levels and expect the next engineer to report the tape as out of spec.

analgue mixing desks were exactly the same. I remember a well known design engineer at Calrec complaining that the things Neve were doing were wrong. It was bad engineering and the products were flawed. Neve channel strips are now touted as a holy grail because they have a sound of their own. So are tape machines.

the thing you must understand is that they offer you a choice. If that sound is exactly what you want, invest your money into them and your recordings will inherit that flavour, if your acoustics, speakers and mics can do their thing as a component.

my investment ha ha in reel to reels was a really bad one. My memory is flawed and I was guilty of having viewed recording through rose tinted sunglasses. The sound they have is unique, and while many people like it, I simply don’t. The change in sound is for me, a backwards step. I just do not like it, I hear it, and dismiss it as a backwards step.

the other very important thing is that you cannot make a decision on analogue artefacts when you are listening to digital YouTube, because everything is changed going through the system. Is the exotic preamp and a Rupert Neve console something you would like or hate in the room? Not after a YouTube mangling. None of my reel to reels sound like I expected.

the only thing that matters is that it improves your music. I suspect that many people who go to analogue are not doing it for sensible reasons, but are searching for the rainbow’s pot of gold.
 
sweetbeats said:
I don’t care what’s on paper, the TSR-8 is not “lower fidelity” than the Akai machine. Same track width. Tascam is double the transport speed. Plus onboard dbx. I’m getting really confused because you are all over the place with what you are looking at.

I think you need to step back and answer one question: what is your goal? What are you needing or wanting to accomplish? And then work forward with what equipment or gear addresses that goal.

I’d your goal is just to have fun and experience different gear then just buy something and have some fun. But trying to decide what tape machine based on YouTube videos is, IMHO, silly. Figure out what you are trying to accomplish and then clearly state it here. We can advise from there but you are all over the place.

BTW I appreciate and am enjoying the posts and comments…lots of good perspective and opinions. Maybe mine can be considered among them.
Click to expand...


I´m all over the place because since I´m newbie to tape, and since I got some advices and feedback from you, my potential uses change. I mean.

1- I started the thread asking about the 488 for "tape sound" or "analog mix" tittle, because I found near me a cheap 488 unit.
You told me about the cassette limitations, and also it used the same head for recording and reproducing.

2- Thank I found a guy selling 4000 Akai series, better quality, reel to reel 7ips and 3 heads. I didn´t notice that the reproducing head should have a delay that should must be corrected on each recording. Since I tend to use Aw4416 instead DAW, go editing track positions all the time is not the best idea. So at this point I go considering the Akai for live "tracking". One solution should be use sync, so that I should record "in time" on the tape, and then could record on the Aw4416 with no time adjust, but that means only 1 mono channel for recording, and the other one for smpte.

3- That sent me to the Tascam Tsr-8, could sync with a reel to reel 15 ips. The problem, is money, is not that cheap. One guy is selling one in very good conditions at 1200 , revised and with two tape included. Does it worth the money? I don´t know.

4- What´s my goal? Well, as posted on the first post, regarding preamps, I like to have hardware ones, I have a 1272 neve clone that sounds pretty clear and big, a Great River, and a Millennia 2 channel. I found them very useful and real compared to UAD preamp emulations.


I thought about tape, as a way to add that palette of "sound color units" like the preamps, but in hardware. In case of preamps, for me there is a quite big difference between emulations and the real thing. Regarding compressors, I really don´t know because I don´t have a real La2a, or 1176 to compare, bu I suspect the hardware can me pushed more than the plugin.
Regarding tape emulations and tape machines? I don´t know, I´m trying to figure out here.


So in the end, for practical use, if go for any of the options, I should need to sync. And that means:
488, posible but lower quality
Akai, posible but only 1 mono channel left
Tascam Tsr-8, good, but more money than I expected at the begining, and not sure if will worth like preamps worth, regarding the "real thing" compared to plugins.

As with the preamps, you will not use the neve clone on all tracks, maybe on a vocal, or guitar , or overheads, or it depends you want to get this presence.

Same applies for the tape. I have discarded the 488 for quality limitations, and the Akai for the sync limitations, now just guessing if its worth the Tsr-8 investment for my studio.

Hope I could be more clear now.

Thank you very much.
 
I have a concrete simple question that you may know. I´m looking on the manuals but I´m not clear.
I have seen that some guys use the Tascam Midizer, that has a serial d-sub connector. What I´m not clear is if to sync, uses one of the channels to record the code, so total 7.., same thing that could be donde with a cheap midiman syncman plus?
Or has any internal direct connection that should allow sync keeping all 8 tracks available?
Maybe any of you have experience with those units or similar ones..
thank you.
 
Yes. With *any* tape synchronization setup, one tape track is “striped” (recorded) with timecode.

You know, a lot of people who have a hybrid setup with analog and digital recorders avoid the complication of synchronization by recording to the tape machine first, and then transferring those tracks all at once to their DAW. That way there’s no need for a synchronizer.

Just remember that if you’re going to add a tape machine to your setup, there are other expenses for maintenance, upkeep and alignment that go along with it. And the cost of tape. Or if you don’t plan on doing the maintenance, alignment and upkeep yourself, be prepared to find a good tech to do it for you, and that’s not cheap either. The TSR-8 is a good quality machine; good sound. Good transport. It’s only negative in my opinion is it is a two-head machine. So there’s no real-time playback monitoring, and electronic setup and alignment is more of a hassle. But consider the cost of the alignment tape, audio spectrum voltmeter, some kind of tone generator, demag tool, and then the tape itself for recording. Depending on how much tape you want to buy, that could be $700-800USD on top of the cost of the tape machine to get started, unless some of that is included with the machine.

A multitrack open reel tape machine is a significant commitment.
 
sweetbeats said:
Yes. With *any* tape synchronization setup, one tape track is “striped” (recorded) with timecode.

You know, a lot of people who have a hybrid setup with analog and digital recorders avoid the complication of synchronization by recording to the tape machine first, and then transferring those tracks all at once to their DAW. That way there’s no need for a synchronizer.
Click to expand...
That’s precisely the set up that I have. But with an MSR16
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top