M
mdainsd
Member
A big Studer, a big ampex and maybe a big japanese machine.
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
I totally agree with you. Personally, I dislike the word 'better' in conversations like this, unless one personalizes it.
I wasn't referring to you. I was being a bit tongue in cheek with something LoneWhitefly has mentioned a few times. I used his quote without putting his name to it.
In the first 'not guilty', I was saying that I don't think what you thought Tim was saying is what he was saying {therefore, he was not guilty}. In the first 'guilty' I thought he was saying what you thought he was saying {therefore he was guilty}. And the next 'guilty' was saying you were guilty of subjectivity, which actually was a backhand compliment for those on this forum that stated they preferred analog rather than go into a pseudo scientific explanation of why it was 'better'.
I think people definitely hear differences in the recording mediums, same way they hear differences in compressed and uncompressed stuff. But it's not always totally foolproof.
Yeah, I know. I was going to use one of your quotes to show that but it was kind of late and I was really tired and I thought, knowing me, it would be a long one ! So I deferred it for later.
That's what I found interesting about yours and Tim's 'tete a tete'. Paradoxically, I agreed with both stances. But for me the overriding point is more often than not going to be the personal one. I'm not really interested in what is more accurate because that's {to me} an odd way to gauge music and the recording of it. I'm happy to listen to recordings from the 50s and 60s. I even have a really early piece of christian blues from 1929. Sounds great to me. But so do Little Purple Circles. I just get a little uppity when opinions are stated as facts. They're actually alot stronger when they are opinions. Or at least, they are to me.
I think quite often in human conversations, it happens that two or three things somehow get morphed into one and then comes the old cross purpose discussion and that can either be wonderfully expansive.....or a mess. On the internet, too often, it's the latter.
I agree that it's counterproductive coming to an analog forum with no other intention than to say "digital is better" or whatever. I never defended those doing that and I wouldn't. But I got the distinct impression from people like Tim who was seen as being a digital crusader, that he indeed loves analog too, but doesn't allow that to get in the way of what he sees as the truth of the matter. I don't think he was denigrating analog by pointing out the strengths and technical advantage of the other.
I was simply trying to point out that even the analog only forum is something of a 'broad church'. The fact that I can tell you how a Mercedes Sprinter can outperform a Ford Transit doesn't mean I don't prefer the transit.
None of that seems weird to me. I may not feel the same way but I can appreciate that and it's the kind of personalized stuff that I nearly always have time for.
Blue Jinn
Rider of the ARPocalypse
BTW, steam is still used: the newest American aircraft carrier has a nuclear reactor to make heat, but fundamentally no different then burning coal or oil to make steam....
Last edited:
B
Bguzaldo
New member
Considering the world is gonna end in 7 months.....doubtful 
A
AtoDeficient
New member
I finally voted, and I voted Yes. . .
I thought about it, and even though the younger generation is deeply rooted in a digital world, I think enough people want or will want the option to go analog, and seeing as how so many machines are being parted out and not restored, eventually complete machines will be scarce. There may someday be small market for a new machine, so I said yes. . . Of course, I'm usually not just wrong, but very wrong.
I thought about it, and even though the younger generation is deeply rooted in a digital world, I think enough people want or will want the option to go analog, and seeing as how so many machines are being parted out and not restored, eventually complete machines will be scarce. There may someday be small market for a new machine, so I said yes. . . Of course, I'm usually not just wrong, but very wrong.
leddy
Well-known member
This may have been mentioned, but IF anyone was to go back into any kind of tooling up to make analog decks, it would probably make more sense to begin by making critical parts for some of the more common, existing machines.
If someone started by making heads and such, they could put together rebuild kits to get machines up to spec instead of them being parted out.
Probably makes more sense than reinventing the wheel.
If someone started by making heads and such, they could put together rebuild kits to get machines up to spec instead of them being parted out.
Probably makes more sense than reinventing the wheel.
sweetbeats
Reel deep thoughts...
But there are already several companies making heads...
leddy
Well-known member
I know about JRF, but I thought they just do a couple of specialty items like the 2" 8 track. Who else is making what?
sweetbeats
Reel deep thoughts...
JRF Magnetics repairs and refurbishes...they don't manufacture but they do distribute a number of manufacturer's products. I believe the 2" 8-track heads are made by Flux. So that's one company making heads. Then there's IEM, Saki, Applied Magnetics, and I believe Sprague Magnetics can manufacture audio heads as well. Some of these companies are lesser known and are more involved with data or helical scan heads but that is market driven. The manufacturing activity is there and alive and well.
Corrections anybody? This is off the top of my head (no pun intended).
Corrections anybody? This is off the top of my head (no pun intended).
T
Tim Gillett
Banned
It would be interesting to know exactly which heads are being sold today and in which quantities. Also the trends over recent years. I guess relappings would have to be factored in as well.
Tim
Tim
Blue Jinn
Rider of the ARPocalypse
What worries me slightly is the narrow gauge heads, and if that niche would be supported. The thing is there *still* is a market for "standard gauge" for lack of a better term, also, for ultra specialized heads like 1/2" 2 track, 2" 8 track etc. That has to be a relatively small market. What I don't know is how much more difficult it is to mfg a 1/4" 8 track head as opposed to a 2" one. Intuitively, I'd think it was harder, but I got my ME degree out of a cracker jack box.
tascam4ever
New member
I have to vote no. It won't make any kind of a "big" comeback. A lot of "Big Time" studios still use 2" tape @ 30 ips for certain purposes and specific tracking but for the most part the digital age has overcome any proabable comeback for large scale analog.
In my humble opinion, that is a shame of sorts.
There will always be a certain special warmth that only analog can provide and since digital systems are still trying to copy that "sound" there may always be some sort of a venue for analog.
In my humble opinion, that is a shame of sorts.
There will always be a certain special warmth that only analog can provide and since digital systems are still trying to copy that "sound" there may always be some sort of a venue for analog.
D
digitalsux
New member
hi doe anyone know of a 2" 16 or 24 track Tape machine for sale in Perth?
Slowrider
STOP Voting!
Basic manufacturing would be a trifle more expensive for the smaller components, but material costs may equalize the larger heads.
IOW, if the demand was really there; some company would jump on the making of components.
W
WarmJetGuitar
New member
Most rock/psyche/shoegaze/experimental whatever musicians (mostly people between 20 and 35) I know think that drums sound way better even on narrow track tape machines than on digital with expensive mics. I'm pretty sure the demand for new semi pro machines will be there when you can no longer pick up a nice condition Fostex or Tascam for the price of a good guitar pedal and/or when the Studer/Otari/Ampex "2 machines in the big studios is getting too worn out to repair.
To my ears drum tracking with a good drummer with a decent drumkit miced with semi-pro mics recorded to a Fostex sounds way better than a good drummer with high end mics on a DAW with fancy AD-converters.
Just avoiding instant headache from listening to cymbals on a digital system is a tough job. On tape it's easy as long as you're not a shitty engineer and the drummer knows his shit.
I can only think of one digital recording (that I know for certain) where the drum sound don't make me frustrated right away which is "Room On Fire" by The Strokes. And there's hardly any cymbals on that.
For other instruments the sonic different is more subtle but definitely still there.
To my ears drum tracking with a good drummer with a decent drumkit miced with semi-pro mics recorded to a Fostex sounds way better than a good drummer with high end mics on a DAW with fancy AD-converters.
Just avoiding instant headache from listening to cymbals on a digital system is a tough job. On tape it's easy as long as you're not a shitty engineer and the drummer knows his shit.
I can only think of one digital recording (that I know for certain) where the drum sound don't make me frustrated right away which is "Room On Fire" by The Strokes. And there's hardly any cymbals on that.
For other instruments the sonic different is more subtle but definitely still there.
F
funkland
New member
for all the doubters who dont think tape will make a come back, i dont think you have seen the light yet. rest assured tape never really died, for them who know tape is still very much as important as digi in its own right, no doubt the prices of 16 and 24 track recorders are on there way up, and if you dont grab a good one now then the trend (Trend for now, necessary later !) ) of having a hybrid studo may well leave you behind facepalm::
i have just taken an tascam msr16 to the practice room put everything into it via di and
gates on the mics, and i must say the sound is huge, i bring it home and put all tracks into to digi for editing and its as clear as a bell, i love it so much im now going to do it at every practice.
i think tape is starting to find its worth in the digi work place, and more and more people want to record on to it. its just another worthy tool, and hay dont forget nearly all albums recorded before the 80s were done on tape!, so all in all it dont matter what you record on if your songs are good they will shine on anything, digi does not make things better.... just digital.
here is an intresting read...
Analogue Multitrack
i have just taken an tascam msr16 to the practice room put everything into it via di and
gates on the mics, and i must say the sound is huge, i bring it home and put all tracks into to digi for editing and its as clear as a bell, i love it so much im now going to do it at every practice.
i think tape is starting to find its worth in the digi work place, and more and more people want to record on to it. its just another worthy tool, and hay dont forget nearly all albums recorded before the 80s were done on tape!, so all in all it dont matter what you record on if your songs are good they will shine on anything, digi does not make things better.... just digital.
here is an intresting read...
Analogue Multitrack
M
mdainsd
Member
gates on the way in huh?
A Reel Person
It's Too Funky in Here!!!
Hello 1997!
The writer of the article preferred the Fostex R8's sound to the Tascam TSR8, so the entire article is suspect. Dbx seems to be the sonic scourge that somehow accentuates everything that's bad about analog. The DolbyS models are touted highly, but we know they didn't hold up well over time. It's a Fostex-centric article, so if that's what floats your boat that's fine, but it's far from an unbiased or comprehensive educational essay. It's about what the writer likes and wants to write about. It's an opinion piece with info, much like the thousands of posts on this site.
I'm not going to knock Fostex, as I think they are competitive in their own niche.
I'm a bit dubious of the idea that analog should be preserved as a great new flavor of digital, like the icing on the cake.
To me, analog is a hearty, no hassle & stable recording platform in it's own right, that doesn't need to be digitized to produce good recordings.
I just wrote another opinion piece. Thank you.
The writer of the article preferred the Fostex R8's sound to the Tascam TSR8, so the entire article is suspect. Dbx seems to be the sonic scourge that somehow accentuates everything that's bad about analog. The DolbyS models are touted highly, but we know they didn't hold up well over time. It's a Fostex-centric article, so if that's what floats your boat that's fine, but it's far from an unbiased or comprehensive educational essay. It's about what the writer likes and wants to write about. It's an opinion piece with info, much like the thousands of posts on this site.
I'm not going to knock Fostex, as I think they are competitive in their own niche.
I'm a bit dubious of the idea that analog should be preserved as a great new flavor of digital, like the icing on the cake.
To me, analog is a hearty, no hassle & stable recording platform in it's own right, that doesn't need to be digitized to produce good recordings.
I just wrote another opinion piece. Thank you.
F
funkland
New member
hi, dolby ??? agreed, i never liked dolby it took the zing of everything analog,The writer of the article preferred the Fostex R8's sound to the Tascam TSR8, so the entire article is suspect. Dbx seems to be the sonic scourge that somehow accentuates everything that's bad about analog. The DolbyS models are touted highly, but we know they didn't hold up well over time. It's a Fostex-centric article, so if that's what floats your boat that's fine, but it's far from an unbiased or comprehensive educational essay. It's about what the writer likes and wants to write about. It's an opinion piece with info, much like the thousands of posts on this site.
I'm not going to knock Fostex, as I think they are competitive in their own niche.
I'm a bit dubious of the idea that analog should be preserved as a great new flavor of digital, like the icing on the cake.
To me, analog is a hearty, no hassle & stable recording platform in it's own right, that doesn't need to be digitized to produce good recordings.
I just wrote another opinion piece. Thank you.
for as long as i have had my multi track tape recorders i have never used it. i dont even know if it works on them as i have never even pressed the button, never neeed too !
i remember it on one of my first tape decks, an AKAI Gxc46d ( christ remember them ?) like it was the big add on to have, tried it then ... hated it
must have stayed with me.
"I'm a bit dubious of the idea that analog should be preserved as a great new flavor of digital, like the icing on the cake."
seems to be going that way, but for the right reasons, not as icing, but more as another creative idium to broaden the creative palette, its relative.
yea, ones on the guitar mic and the drum toms snare and bassdrum,
bass and keys di'd.
cuts out the room noise the only mics i dont gate are the drum overheads, so some room noise there, i set the bassdrum gate while playing the snare, so it just cuts out the snare sound and vice v with the snare gate, could of done same to vocals but dont like the room sound switching in and out with the voice, so pref to add voice later, get all but the drums to play not too loud and all in all a nice clean sound
Last edited:
A Reel Person
It's Too Funky in Here!!!
DolbyS
I've read that DolbyS was very excellent NR, but as time has passed some of the DolbyS IC's developed problems and are non-replaceable, as they are obsolete and out of stock. That's left some DolbyS consumers in the lurch with their ailing machines.
Having said that, I've never been a Dolby fan, either A, B or C which I've used, and I'm a solid Dbx fan. I think dbx lives up to it's promise of quashing tape noise and boosting dynamic range. I've used mainly Tascams with dbx, although I have a smaller variety of Fostexes with DolbyC. I'll use whatever NR is built into the machine, or in the case of Tascam would consider using outboard dbx units.
Regarding the subject of your post, I agree that analog has been seen in new light and is used differently now in tandem with digital setups, and that's all good to me. There's room enough in this technical field for all styles of production.
This post is not factual content, that's what spec sheets are for. It's another post of what I think & my own opinions.
I've read that DolbyS was very excellent NR, but as time has passed some of the DolbyS IC's developed problems and are non-replaceable, as they are obsolete and out of stock. That's left some DolbyS consumers in the lurch with their ailing machines.
Having said that, I've never been a Dolby fan, either A, B or C which I've used, and I'm a solid Dbx fan. I think dbx lives up to it's promise of quashing tape noise and boosting dynamic range. I've used mainly Tascams with dbx, although I have a smaller variety of Fostexes with DolbyC. I'll use whatever NR is built into the machine, or in the case of Tascam would consider using outboard dbx units.
Regarding the subject of your post, I agree that analog has been seen in new light and is used differently now in tandem with digital setups, and that's all good to me. There's room enough in this technical field for all styles of production.
This post is not factual content, that's what spec sheets are for. It's another post of what I think & my own opinions.