I'm really enjoying this thread! I think what I love about this forum is that I've been able to assemble a respectable home studio for recording really challenging and difficult music by interacting with a bunch of really supportive folks.
I like it here too and I think one of the main reasons is because by-in-large the frequent fliers of the Analog Only forum are more interested in the
process and
medium of analog recording, and less so
what is being used and
what is being recorded.
So there is something of interest to contribute by just about anybody and few to say "that's wrong". We seem to just enjoy analog gear and the processes surrounding its use from consumer to professional formats. Its really refreshing.
Personal and gear prudence/safety aside, it seems that if you encourage others in what
they are doing there is a better chance to gain *something* through their experiences rather than trying to corral them to what is "right".
I think opinions are welcome here, even very polar, but there is infrequently "freaking out" as a result because there is respect for and recognition of the
fact that NONE of us have the same ears, gear, spaces, preferences or aspirations. Of course there are lots of rules of thumb and we lean heavy on that, but it is just so much more enjoyable to be able to kick back and learn/observe/converse. Like being at a swap meet of information rather than a high pressure seminar or something. That's how I picture it anyway.
I'm always amazed the Tascam machines sound as good as they do. Seems like they should have paid a higher sonic price for using the same specs for record and play heads
Yeah, it took me a bit to get over that when I realized that they were the
exact same heads on my 48 and 58...I struggled because I thought "couldn't it sound
better if the gaps were optimized??" and "what's the point of
having the second head??". Well I learned quickly the
logical reason behind it as far as calibration, but I can tell you after calibrating my 388 (with one record/reproduce head) and going through the exercise of finding an optimum bias level using the LF modulation method I would have LOVED a second record/reproduce head!!
I see a couple things that were drivers behind equalizing the record and reproduce head gaps (making them identical): the need for better sync response for overdub cue mixes and the availability of improved head manufacturing that allowed the compromise to be acceptable for reproduce quality. When was the first machine made that had identical record/reproduce head gaps? I know the Ampex MM-1100 had identical gaps and that was 1972.
What the gear snobs don't want to hear is that the prosumer decks are generally better for home and project studio work, where other gear is also prosumer level, space is limited and everything happens in one room (or maybe in several different places). They play well with unbalanced, consumer level audio, they're smaller and more portable and the transports are quiet, while some pro machines are loud.
This is a huge point...there is a massive practicality aspect to gear that is better suited for the home studio. I have such an affinity for my Ampex MM-1000 but it is NOT ideal for the one-room studio. It is terrifically noisy. I need to get out my sound pressure level meter at some point and measure, but I have yet to figure out just how I'm going to track in there without a massive amount of bleed. Halftracks too...My 3M M-64 is the size of an apartment fridge...the Ampex 440C in the Ampex console is the size of a washing machine...and they too are noisy. Then there's the Tascam BR-20T. Granted the BR-20T was aimed at the broadcast market but it takes up MUCH less space, is whisper quiet and works wonderfully.
Here's something I keep coming back to:
Snobbery is often ignorant of an individual's needs and constraints; practicality is irrelevant to the eletist.
Moreover, the gear snobs hate little mixers like my Mackie 1604, but when paired up with a tape machine that works well with consumer levels, a mixer like that can be very clean sounding.
And that's another thing...what two people have the exact same taste?? Yeah I think there are general parameters we strive for but some people like grit or distinct signature in their signal path and others want transparency and that factor is often also left out of the mix (no pun intended) when discussing matters of gear and what you "need" or "should have".
You know what I think? I think a
lot of the drive to upgrade components in a piece of gear (like opamps in particular) is in the misguided pursuit for it to sound "better", but the factors that define a "better" opamp are faster slew rate, lower noise and lower distortion. People doing and pushing these mods often are shooting for transparency...for the gear to be invisible. But somebody that thinks they've found the answer to "better" isn't likely to ask you what is "better" to YOU. Some time ago I was all set to start upgrading components on the amp cards on my MM-1000...replacing all the carbon comp resistors with metal or carbon film...get rid of all the tantalum caps and put in "audio grade" 'lytics...replace all the old film caps with new mylar parts, etc...basically gutting the cards. Dumb. Steve Puntolillo steered me away. "Yeah you can do that, and it'll have a cleaner sound to it, but why? Replace the output coupling cap [in the electronics chassis...a real bottleneck in the signal path], calibrate it NAB eq at 15ips and
it'll sound like an Ampex." I
want it to sound like an Ampex. This is just something to think about. "That [lower-class gear] is for kids...it has TL072's in it." Blah-blah-blah. I will always remember the reaction of the guy that bought my Tascam M-520 from me. He needed a general duty board for his home-based studio. Now this was a good-sized studio with three rooms, some pretty nice gear (a Studer A80 2" 16-track among other bits), and this is a guy that had done a bunch of recording at Fairfax Studios in California through a vintage EMI monster...the owner of that studio and the guy that bought my M-520 did some tracking through it and they were "blown away". What the buyer liked about the M-520 was how it sounded when pushed to its limits. He was after a certain sound, and not that that's all the M-520 is good for, but there's a couple guys I would not
expect to praise the M-520, but they
loved it and have some pedigree and experience to validate snobbery if they so chose to act in that way. M-520 is full of 072's, 2041's and 4556's...lower class opamps by the standards of many today. Its alllllllll relative.
there is nothing inherently bad or good about unbalanced vs balanced connections
This is completely true.
Balanced audio wasn't designed because it makes things sound "better", it was designed to deal with induced noise in long cable runs.
It was originally developed by the telephone industry. Now THERE are some long cable runs.
The technology was brought into the studio for the same reason...noise, hum, etc. But the bottom line is that if you are not having trouble with noise on an
unbalanced connection you aren't going to make a difference by using a balanced interconnect except whatever difference is made by sending the signal through the balancing circuitry. Shifting sands, folks...everybody used to use transformers to balance and unbalance their audio...they imparted a sonic signature on the audio...then transformerless designs come into play..."cleaner"...now the signature of the trafo-based circuitry has some lore...go figure. If you're happy with your gear then
enjoy it! If something is missing then mill around with others, discuss, try things, but the solution will be unique to you, your ears, your taste and aspirations...
). I am going to buy whatever 8 track I buy with confidence - and I am probably going to stick with Tascam! (Man, an M-520 sounds really nice right about now, too - I'm looking to upgrade from my M-312B - the faders are really scratchy, even after I cleaned them, thanks to Sweetbeats' great thread on that subject...).
