Will Analog Multitracks ever be made again?

[ofajen]

Yeah, I've heard that before but I always kept the transport clean and used the best, available tape(Scotch/3M966). I can find no evidence of "stickey tape syndrome". I believe it is simply a problem with the reel,transport tension cause when it starts to happen, if i put my finger on the ,(sorry i don't know the technical name) i'll call it the tension arm (?) then the reels start up again. Is this something that is just out of adjustment like brake pads?

If the tape is OK, you might check capstan pinch roller pressure. Perhaps over the years, the aging of the pinch roller has caused it to shrink or harden and reduce the pinch roller pressure? If you push on the fixed part of the pinch roller mechanism to increase pressure on the capstan, does that help?

Cheers,

Otto

 

[cjacek]

A bit of an interesting read:

ATR Tape's Mike Spitz Talks About The Company's Audio Tape

June 27, 2008

Mike Spitz of ATR Services, Inc. -- a company whose "raison d'etre" was servicing, re-manufacturing and otherwise keeping alive the ATR-100 Series Recorder by Ampex now has a new mission -- providing mastering tape for those machines and others like them. Company owner and president Mike Spitz took some time to chat with Gearwire about tape.

Patrick Ogle: Tell me about what you are producing. You do 1, 2 and 1/2 inch tape. What seems to be the most popular so far?

Mike Spitz: We manufacture 1/4", 1/2", 1" and 2" ATR Master Tape (AMT). 1/2" and 2" are the most popular widths but we have good activity with all widths. 1/4 inch has been picking up lately as well.

What led you to start making tape? What trend did you see happening that made you think there was a market?

Analog sound tracking and mixing was experiencing growth in 2005 when Quantegy and BASF closed their tape plants.

The only profitable tape made by Quantegy and BASF were analog audio tapes. However their plant size was simply too big to just continue making analog tape.

This left all analog users no choice but to record digital. I am the world's biggest proponent of analog music recording and I was "stupid" enough to put my wallet where my mouth is.

Manufacturing tape by all counts is extremely difficult and expensive. It took nearly three years get our tape to market. The theory of the process is relatively simple. The process itself is whopping difficult. The fact that I was striving for improved levels of magnetic performance added additional strain and expense to our technical efforts.

Is there any difference between what you are producing and the old BASF tape?

Many!

A lot of bands seem to be recording and then dumping for the mix to software. Have you seen this trend at all?

This has been a popular trend since the late 1990's. It is akin to putting lipstick on a pig. Bouncing off analog is a treatment but not a cure to make digital files sound something like a song. It certainly is more effective then adding another plug-in that is supposed to be a tape emulator. Why do we emulate when the real exists?

The good news is that younger bands are increasingly recording analog. Going analog means that you prepare, make decisions, play your best and tend to capitalize on capturing the moment. It is an evolved human experience compared with 'wanking' day after day at another LCD screen.

What are the costs?

In general the cost of recording analog has higher up-front expense than digital but after you have paid the up-front cost the analog recording method is far more economical and durable over the years. If a song it is not worth recording using tape, it is not worth releasing either.

Digital recording carries a heavily loaded rear end cost if one tries to make it sound okay and adequately backs up all of the files.

Our 2" tape cost less than similar tape was in 1976 if you take into account inflation and the dollar's value in general.

Thank God the best of the electrically recorded music era was done to tape. Can you imagine finding rare 1962 Muddy Waters SCSI drive or DAT, DASH, X80, DTRS, bit split ADAT tape, etc. They wouldn't even make good landfills.

An analog recording path is analogous to handling the real (as opposed to virtual) work of the artist. A sampled file is not analogous to real.

Anything else you want to mention about your tape? specs. etc?

I wish to thank our customers for keeping the faith during the development and our recent start-up. We have been slammed with orders and we have been back-ordered since day one. We are making incremental improvements to our process during production and our customers are noticing our efforts.

I may seem anti-digital but that is not at all true. Digital computer technology is great for my CAD-CAM work and very handy for our accounting system. It beats the slide rule and adding machine for these types of repetitious and boring chores. The point I am making is that digital and computer technology never did replace tape for music recording.

Music Breathes, Tape Breathes.

Source URL: http://www.gearwire.com/atrtape-mikespitz.html

 

[SteveM]

Thanks for the article Daniel.

How's their tape?

 

[Victory Pete]

Thanks for the article Daniel.

How's their tape?

I had some problems with a test tape MRL made on 1/2" ATR. There were alot of little "bumps" on it. You could hear them pop every now and them. Also an edge track had a 10K signal oscillating. If I flip it over the problem would now be on the opposing channel on the machine. I sent it back to MRL to be recorded again, but it still did it. It also did it on all my TSR-8's ruling out the machine. It was a huge headache considering this was my first time aligning my machines. I had MRL make a new tape on RMGI with no problems. The ATR tape is not suited for Tascam machines because it is very thick and heavy. This can wear out heads and transports prematurely. Also if you use NR you dont gain much with the high output tape. Tascam decks were not meant for high bias tapes, I tried to bias my TSR-8 to the ATR, The bias trim pot was cranked but would still not reach the proper bias. I now only use RMGI 911 which is 456 equivalent. Tascam machines were designed for 456. ATR was designed for the heavy duty Ampex, Studer, and other high end machines.
VP

 

[SteveM]

Thanks for the feedback VP. I forgot they were only making the heavy stuff.

 

[famous beagle]

it was the advancement in processing power that made the ADAT obsolete. i started on 'em. they kicked ass right up until i didn't need them anymore because the computer i built could handle the recording.

personally, i have to wonder why in the hell anyone would WANT to record on to a cassette of 1/4" tape. it does NOT sound better AND it's a pain in the ass. The ONLY reason i can think of is poeple are afraid of change.

I know this thread has moved on from here, but I don't have time to read it all, so I'm jumping in here just to answer this question.

A few reasons:

1) Nostalgia: I started on a cassette 4-track, so hell yes there is definitely a nostalgia to it for sure. My basic progression of recorders went something like this (all dates approximate):

1988 - Cassette 4-track (Fostex X-26)
1991 - 8 track hard disc recorder (Vestax HD8 - no built-in mixer)
1993 - ADAT (X2)
1995 - Minidisc recorders (several of them)
1997 - 8 track hard disc (Roland VS880)

At this point, I had a kidney stone and no insurance, so $6K later I had to sell a bunch of stuff and scale way down. (Next kidney stone, I'm spending $30 on liquor and drinking until I pass out.) I went through a bunch of smaller, digital multi-tracks for a while just to have something: Zoom MRS4, Zoom PS-04 (or something like that), etc.

2002 - 16-track hard disc recorder (Yamaha AW16G)
2006-present - Tascam 38 reel to reel, Tascam 424 cassette 4-track, and Computer DAW running Mackie Tracktion


So I've been through pretty much the whole progression, and yes I learned how to use the digital stuff. I wasn't that hard. Although, the computer system did take a bit of research simply because I waited so long to get on board (I was using stand-alone DAWs) and didn't understand what the whole "plug-in" thing was for a while. Now I've got it.

2) Sound: After having used both methods for a long time, I can certainly say that I love the sound of my cassette 4-track. I'm not going to say it sounds better or worse than my digital system. It just sounds different. And I love the way it sounds. There are certain songs that I just want to track to 4-track cassette. I have fun working within the limitations of the format --- it makes you do things differently --- and for certain songs, it's exactly the sound I want.

I never did really care for the sound of any of the comparable small digital 4-tracks.

I prefer the sound of my Tascam 38 to anything I own. That's my favorite sounding recorder that I've personally worked with. It's got a great organic, full sound to me. I've never worked with anything other than cassette-4 track, 1/2" 8-track tape, and hard disc. I'm sure I would probably like the sound of a real upscale analog machine better, but I don't have any experience with that.

The DAW Tracktion system is what I use for work projects. I work as a writer and editor for Hal Leonard and Guitar Edge magazine. When I have to record audio for any of that, I do it all on my DAW because it's fast, cheap, and it's very easy to get a good, clear, precise sound. I even use AmpliTube for guitars on those projects, because A) I'm usually recording after my son has gone to bed, and B) it's easier and quicker than miking an amp to get a bunch of serviceable sounds. But I don't enjoy the workflow nearly as much as I do working with analog.

When I record my own songs, I use analog and I mic real amps. Although I sometimes will fire up the DAW if I need to get a keyboard sound from a plug-in or something. (I'd use a real Rhodes if I could afford one, but I can't, so I make do with what I can.)

3) Romance/Intangible: I just simply enjoy moving faders, loading reels, patching cables, and cleaning heads more than I do clicking a mouse. There's not really any logic to it I guess. It's just something I prefer more. I'm very much a DIY type of person - I like building pedals and amps and making repairs - so I enjoy working with things where I can see moving parts and push buttons, etc. Maybe that has something to do with it. I don't know.

Anyway, that's it for me in an oversized nutshell.

 

[cjacek]

The ATR tape is not suited for Tascam machines because it is very thick and heavy. This can wear out heads and transports prematurely. Also if you use NR you dont gain much with the high output tape. Tascam decks were not meant for high bias tapes, I tried to bias my TSR-8 to the ATR, The bias trim pot was cranked but would still not reach the proper bias. I now only use RMGI 911 which is 456 equivalent. Tascam machines were designed for 456. ATR was designed for the heavy duty Ampex, Studer, and other high end machines.
VP

How's their tape?

I forgot they were only making the heavy stuff.

Oh yeah, it's pretty much the consensus among many of us here too that ATR Master tape is not really meant for the so called semi-pro / consumer decks out-there, despite some of the claims made by some dealers. The article was meant solely as a read on analogue in general and not to taut ATR tape and, while still a good tape, again, it's meant for the so called "upper class" machines like the Studers, Ampex ATR-100 etc...., which can not only handle the thick / heavy tape but can use the unbelievably high operating level.

BTW: famous beagle... Great post!

 

[ez_willis]

When I record my own songs, I use analog and I mic real amps. Although I sometimes will fire up the DAW if I need to get a keyboard sound from a plug-in or something.

FTR, i record to a digital medium but i use no vst or samples. i also have a digital mixer in front of the computer so the part about the sliding faders and patching cords still apllies.

 

[jjones1700]

FTR, i record to a digital medium but i use no vst or samples. i also have a digital mixer in front of the computer so the part about the sliding faders and patching cords still apllies.

You're almost answering your own question and almost shooting yourself in the foot as well. You don't have to use an external digital mixer in front of the DAW, but you choose to. Same with some of us and tape. It's a matter of choice. Everyone has their preference and fortunately, both camps can be accommodated.

 

[ez_willis]

You don't have to use an external digital mixer in front of the DAW, but you choose to.

no, i have to with my setup. i have an rme hammerfall card. i use the digital mixer in front of that and use 8 channels of the mixer to go into the hammerfall card when i record my drums.

and how am i shooting myself in the foot?

 

[ez_willis]

and again, i really don't care if you dinosaurs want to take the extra time to record to a dying medium.

 

[jjones1700]

and again, i really don't care if you dinosaurs want to take the extra time to record to a dying medium.

And the computer isn't a dying format?

 

[ez_willis]

And the computer isn't a dying format?

not when we're talking about home recording it ain't. is there something out there that i am unaware of?

 

[cjacek]

ez.... What's your experience with analogue?

 

[sweetbeats]

Well, if there was such a thing as an analog Christmas sweater, I'd say ez has it...it...is...AWESOME!!!!!

 

[ausrock]

and again, i really don't care if you dinosaurs want to take the extra time to record to a dying medium.

You only need one post to express your opinion so W(hy)TF do you keep posting here? A little trolling fun perhaps

A quote from elsewhere............."
You can tell by the extreme and unyielding nature of their position that it's not serious... it's just troll-talk."

 

[ez_willis]

You only need one post to express your opinion so W(hy)TF do you keep posting here? A little trolling fun perhaps

don't worry about why i post where, first of all. secondly, i have been responding to replys to things i've posted.

why are you asking? trolling, perhaps?

 

[ez_willis]

ez.... What's your experience with analogue?

that's a broad question. i've recorded with bands in studios as large as A&M and Sunset Sound. I wasn't involved in the actual recording process other than playing music. We also used to record practices and demos on a tascam 4 track cassette. when i quit being in bands and started recording myself, i started with adats. now i record straight to the harddrive.

 

[Victory Pete]

Does anyone know what happened to Ghost's post? I swear I read one this morning.
VP

 

[grimtraveller]

no, i have to with my setup. i have an rme hammerfall card. i use the digital mixer in front of that and use 8 channels of the mixer to go into the hammerfall card when i record my drums.

I know this is slightly off topic.
That sounds kind of interesting. I'm very much a novice with soundcards but it sounds kind of similar to what I do with my Behringer mixer for drums. When you record into the card itself via the mixer, how many inputs of the card itself are used and do you have to kind of mix or get a satisfactory mix before recording ?