X-26: Trauma, disease and aaarrrrggghhh

[trevor machine]

If anyone can help I'd very grateful.

Here's the symptom:

On tracking guitar (and sometimes bass too) to cassette via my X-26 I notice that the tone sounds almost pitch-shifty, like it's varying in frequency. As though it has some kind of bad effect on it. This is completely unnoticeable with drums, fairly absent with bass - but always there with guitar.

I thought it might be tape stretch. but this happens on the first pass. Though admittedly I'm using SA90, not 60. Still, I do a lot of first takes, and don't pass and pass again.

So is it a heads problem?

thanks in advance.

 

[billisa]

wow and flutter

I wouldn't have thought a 90min tape should be a problem. Is it an extended pitch shift (wow) or more like vibrato (flutter). Or is it something else altogether? One thing to do is try a different, new, quality cassette. Maybe the shell is holding up the tape, hence the pitch shift. In any event this shouldn't be happening, just because it's a 90...

If you realy want to test, try recording some extended notes on a piano -- hit the key and hold the pedal down, let the note drift away. Or, kind of do the same with a high note on your guitar. Just one note, pluck and hold. Then you'll get a clear sense of what's happening. Is this a new machine? Maybe the capstan needs cleaning. Take a q-tip cotton thingy, dab it in alcohol, and don't just clean the heads, clean the capstan rotor as well, and the rubber wheels... This is what controls tape speed past the heads and if it's got some grease or oil on it, you'll get some slippage, and then pitch changes...

 

[HWB]

I used TDK SM10 tapes for years. You can record 5 minutes each side, great for one song. I've never had a problem with them. They are a top quality high bias tape, a little expensive but worth it if you want quality. They are made in 20 and 30 minutes also and possibly 60 minutes. I like the SM10's for obvious reasons, the short length has no drag on the mechanism in the machine and therefore reduces the possibility for problems.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

A dried-out pinch roller will cause this, as will tdrive motor problems.

If it happens the first time on fresh tape, then it isn't likely a tape issue -- it's likely time to have it serviced.

 

[trevor machine]

Thanks so much. That was my first post. I know I should've tried to pass on advice to others before plunging in with my own thread. However, I did look for threads and posts to respond to for quite a few days, but I simply couldn't match the quality of advice that was being offered. So my first post ended up being my first thread!! Ulp.

Your 3 replies are really useful. My feeling at the moment is that BBS is probably closest. Firstly, the tapes are brand new TDK SA90s. I have tried hitting them hard, soft and in the middle with this vaguely dirty guitar tone of mine. It's always the same story. And billisa I think it's much more a case of flutter than a slower, osciliating wow. I would describe it as an intermitent vibrato effect - sometimes vile, other times bearable - but always present.

The thing is the unit's 2ndhand. but I know the old owner - and have several recvordings he madfe on it. I notice now that when I listen carefully to his recordings I can hear the beginnings of the problem. And NB he bought it new (I was with him).

So christ knows what this all adds up to. Apart from that I am eyeing up Tascam 424mkIIIs.

Ok - if those who've already posted have any other comments, please feed 'em in. It's all great knowledge, and very much appreciated. Likewise, if anyone else has any ideas - go for it.

Thanks again.

 

[trevor machine]

Haha. Oh. I am starting a band with Blue Bear Sound called the Tascam Atheists if any other righteous heathens and infidels are interested.

 

[billisa]

Why not have it serviced...

Apart from that I am eyeing up Tascam 424mkIIIs. Thanks again.

I'm not sure if it would be cost effective to have your unit serviced, but if it's not a wise move, why not move into something digital? Just a thought.

 

[schecter589]

would anyone happen to have a manual they could copy, e-mail, or put on a site where i could view it??????

 

[trevor machine]

Sorry, I don't have a manual or a link to one. Wouldn't mind one though.

Bellisa, I wouldn't go near digital. Analogue is the only way for me. I don't mind the hiss (in fact, I find digital weirdly silent), I like the 'natural' compression and I'm much, much more familiar with analogue. I already have too little time to record without having to get into new learning curves. But thanks for the suggestion. I have thought about it. Cheers.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Just a point...

Cassette-based multi-track recorders are hardly representative of "analog sound."

That's kind of like saying a Kia is like a Ferrari because both have 4 wheels and an engine!

Small-format digital recorders aren't really representative of what digital can really do either, but at the budget-end of the spectrum you get a higher quality sound overall than the equivalent analog recorder.

So you *may* want to consider an upgrade after all.

 

[Toki987]

the manuals are in .pdf format

http://www.tascam.com/products/manuals.php

 

[schecter589]

thanks......that would have been very helpful if the fostex x-26 was made by tascam.........lol

 

[A Reel Person]

Dude, you'll do much better to hop over to the Tascam 424mkIII,...

it would be a big upgrade from the X-12, it should be backward compatible for your old tapes, & it keeps you on the basic cassette 4-track medium.

The 4-track cassette format itself is a little 'stripped', production-wise, but 4-track portastudio-like machines are a great learning tool & springboard for beginners, [IMO]. However, being basically a 'stripped' down format, the Tascam 424mkIII Portastudio is the best new machine in it's class, w/certain other vintage Portastudios also being hard-sought after items, on the used market. But, if you want something that's clean & snazzy, & should run trouble-free, stick with the brand new 424mkIII, & I'd say get'em while they're new and still available on the store shelves.

Supplies of new cassette Portastudios may become more limited, as time goes on. I've seen the new Portastudio related stocks dwindle, and they're not being replaced by new stacks of Porta's, so I'd say they're probably closing out the run of the cassette 4-track Portastudio, and continued production of new cassette 4-track Portastudios & related machines is uncertain.

With Tascam cassette Portastudios, as with lots of other things, you should get'em while they're current, 'cause when they're gone, they're gone, & you'll then be automatically funnelled to the used market, which IMO is less desirable, YMMV.

[Oops, sorry for the long dissertation!]

 

[trevor machine]

Thanks everyone!

Blue Bear Sound, I'm wondering. I've often thought cassette is in some ways THE most representative example of analogue sound. At least in the sense that it's the most common analogue format these days. Since the decline of vinyl, anyway. So while a lot of people will be reliant on digital reproduction, the 2nd most popular is cassette. So in that sense I think a strong claim can be made for the case that tape (even if in the form of cassette multi-trackers) is indeed representative of analogue sound.

I think I'd also want to take issue with the idea that small format digital multi-trackers are better quality than their analogue counterparts. Yeah - lower noise floors. But I think - via its compression, and other factors which contribute to colouration - tape is not worse or inferior. the most I would conede is that it's different.

To establish that digital is better than tape (in the context in which we're talking here - small domestic multi-trackers), the argument would have to rest upon a quite narrow technical set of definitions (e.g. noise floor, etc). And that doesn't take into account the colouration factors I mentioned. Sure, that's where it starts to get rather subjective. Nevertheless, subjectivity is such an inherent part of listening to music that introducing it into the discussion really doesn't worry me at all. Even if it DOES tend to make further debate difficult (e.g. the impasse arising from the kind of 'you like what you like, I like what I like' conclusion).

So yeah. The X-26. Mine's a crock. Heh.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

I'm sorry - but you're incorrect on a number of factors. Audio characteristics of narrow-format analog tape are a compromise at best and they are not comparable to the results acheived by large-format analog recorders.

In budget digital, the recording medium itself doesn't enter into the equation at all. It stores the information flawlessly. Where the degradation occurs is in the quality of the converters, which, in budget gear, is mediocre at best.

So why are you better off with budget digital? Because you can always change the converters and you'll immediately improve the quality of the sound. With budget analog, you're stuck with the inherent sonic limitations of the recording medium (of which there are plenty!)

But In either format you will still have to deal with the garbage pres they put on those things!

 

[mekkab]

So why are you better off with budget digital? Because you can always change the converters and you'll immediately improve the quality of the sound.

Dumb question- how do you change the converters? Do you mean dump the digital recording to a computer with great sound card? Something like that?

 

[trevor machine]

I wouldn't dispute that 1/8" cassette is not comparable with e.g. 16 track 2" in terms of quality. My point was merely that cassette is representative of analogue sound. Which it is - for the reasons I stated.

When you said 'cassette-based multi-track recorders are hardly representative of "analog sound"' you are, with ultimate respect, quite simply wrong. If you'd have said something like 'cassette-based multi-trackers are hardly representative of the BEST in analogue sound' I would've have had absolutely no problem in agreeing with you. But you didn't.

Also I'd agree completely that digital just stores sound, adding nothing (ignoring for a moment the converters issue). But that is precisely my point. Tape/analogue adds something. Call it crappy hiss if you like. But you can't tell me I'm wrong for not disliking that aspect of tape. To me it's how I like things to sound. And to reiterate an earlier point, digital sounds sterile to me. But this is all linked to why I introduced the notion of subjectivity. To tell me I'm wrong for a preference is not very helpful in this context.

But by all means, fill me in with more knowledge. I am enjoying this opportunity to learn more very much.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

When you said 'cassette-based multi-track recorders are hardly representative of "analog sound"' you are, with ultimate respect, quite simply wrong. If you'd have said something like 'cassette-based multi-trackers are hardly representative of the BEST in analogue sound' I would've have had absolutely no problem in agreeing with you. But you didn't.

True, but you're arguing semantics - it wasn't hard to see that THAT was my implication given the context of what we're disucssing.

Also I'd agree completely that digital just stores sound, adding nothing (ignoring for a moment the converters issue). But that is precisely my point. Tape/analogue adds something. Call it crappy hiss if you like. But you can't tell me I'm wrong for not disliking that aspect of tape.

Crappy hiss, limited sound reproduction capabilities, not to mention wow & flutter. But hey, if you like those aberrations - it's your choice!

And to reiterate an earlier point, digital sounds sterile to me.

Please explain what that means to you -- "sterile" is one of those meaningless, catch-all description that people love to throw around when discussing analog and digital formats.... until a clear definition is made as to what sonic characteristics "sterile" refers to, it's pointless talking about it!

 

[mixmkr]

Please explain what that means to you -- "sterile" is one of those meaningless, catch-all description that people love to throw around when discussing analog and digital formats.... until a clear definition is made as to what sonic characteristics "sterile" refers to, it's pointless talking about it!

I think he/she means it is not PHATT!

But I would interpret the word "sterile" to mean ....cold sounding, not natural or lifelike... harsh...brittle... all similar descriptive words....generally used in a negative context describing the sound.

Just like a track is "warm and fat"...usually indicates that things sound full...well rounded bottom end with punch, thick ...pleasing......etc..


oh...thanks for letting me jump in!!
(Fostex...damn good products!!)

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

If that is, in fact, his definition, then he has not heard quality digital recordings.

There is nothing inherently sterile about digital recording -- given converters of sufficient quality, it will capture the sound source very accurately -- such that, if it sounds sterile, then you'd have to look to the source, and not the recording format.