Recording on tape.

Noseferatu · #1 09-27-2010, 03:28 PM

Anybody doing this?? I'm looking for a cheap tape recorder. I don't know if I wanna go reel to reel or cassette. All I know is I need at least 8 tracks.

Help??

Floridabwoy · #2 09-27-2010, 03:28 PM

Tascam 388.

Noseferatu · #3 09-27-2010, 04:56 PM

How about the Tascam 488mkii??

projectMalamute · #4 09-27-2010, 05:35 PM

Otari MX5050.

tangentmusic · #5 09-27-2010, 05:50 PM

Why tape?

With the abundance of inexpensive digital recorders?

I can see a reel to reel giving you a vintage analog type sound if thats your goal, but a cassette player is just plain obsolete anymore (I have both). Reel to reels can be bulky.
I have not used either my 4 track cassette recorder or reel to reel in years.

Whats your plan? Simplicity? Mobility?

cavemusic · #6 09-27-2010, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by projectMalamute

Otari MX5050.

Not cheap. I have an old Otari MX5050 analog eight track - uses 1/2" open reel tape. I like it a lot, but analog tape is getting expensive and hard to find. Parts are hard to find, and technicians that can do line-up and repair are getting rare. Check this out before you decide to go this route.

The cassette-type recorders like the 388 and 488 will be cheaper, but they are mostly useful for lower quality demos and song-writing. Not likely to get more than 8 tracks on cassettes.

You can get some opinions on TapeOp and gearslutz.

Gator Bass · #7 09-27-2010, 06:04 PM

I would have to agree with the digital recording option mentioned by tangentmusic. Are you recording live tracks or separate sound on sound tracks? If Live, a DAT works great with a Mackie Mixer. I have recorded 10 live tracks on DAT using a Mackie and that has worked very well over the years.

cavemusic · #8 09-27-2010, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gator Bass

I would have to agree with the digital recording option mentioned by tangentmusic. Are you recording live tracks or separate sound on sound tracks? If Live, a DAT works great with a Mackie Mixer. I have recorded 10 live tracks on DAT using a Mackie and that has worked very well over the years.

I also agree. I should have also mentioned I rarely use my analogue tape gear anymore. There is so much more you can do with digital for way less money. Unless you get a higher-end machine like the MX5050 or better, digital is way better anyway. The cassette-based stuff was never all that great, but it was the only thing available at the time.

Oh yeah, the MX5050 is also very big and heavy.

Noseferatu · #9 09-27-2010, 06:46 PM

I just like the warmth and depth. And yes, I plan to record live as well.

projectMalamute · #10 09-27-2010, 06:56 PM

I think we need to calibrate our expectations regarding the terms big, heavy, and expensive in regards to an analog tape machine. These things are not toys.

An analog tape machine that is worth using in preference to the tons of very serviceable prosumer grade digital options is not going to be a $150 dollar proposition. If your goal is cheap you want digital.

The MX5050 is a pro-sumer machine that compares very favorably to the expensive stuff. You can probably get in to one for around a grand.

I'd have a hard time coming up with something cheaper or smaller that I would prefer to a laptop pro tools rig.

62Jazzbass · #11 09-27-2010, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by projectMalamute

An analog tape machine that is worth using [edit] is not going to be a $150 dollar proposition.

Exactly.

I'd LOVE to do analog on a regular basis, but let's get real here.....

seamonkey · #12 09-27-2010, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noseferatu

I just like the warmth and depth. And yes, I plan to record live as well.

Warmth - different meaning for tape. Tape saturation is odd harmonics. It's been measured.

There are plenty of tape saturation plugins that blind and null testing show can degrade a good digital track to sound the same.

Depth - there's less depth. It's easy to do 24bit @ 41.5k easy on a cheap PC that will easily have more "depth"

Cassette - narrow tape with cross talk. There's plugins for that also.

Even though the prices are falling drastically for used high quality old studio gear, there's a reason why those studios have moved on. The same solution they've moved to you can have for a fraction of buying their old gear.

Sometimes it's fun to play with old gear. The gear doesn't matter as much as the music. If you can avoid the distractions, you'll have a lot more time for music with digital.

bruiser1964 · #13 09-28-2010, 03:49 AM

I agree with all the above, I used to record on tape in the old days - I've had a long break and recently started building my current set up with Pro tools. There is no way I would go back to tape. The scope and quality of even a cheap digital set up beats any home based tape set up hands down.
You can get some great portable digital recorders for very small beans these days.

**Vorago** · #14 09-28-2010, 03:54 AM

You could also record digital & feed it through either an analogue board or tape machine to make it sound more 'vintage'

Febs · #15 09-28-2010, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noseferatu

I just like the warmth and depth. And yes, I plan to record live as well.

You're not going to get "warmth" and "depth" from multitracking to cassette tape. Crosstalk, yes. Warmth and depth, no.

If you want cheap multitrack recordings that sound good, digital is the only way to go.

bassbrad · #16 09-28-2010, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noseferatu

I just like the warmth and depth. And yes, I plan to record live as well.

Are you rich, have lots of time and patience? Then yes go analog
If not all three in abundance then go digital.
Hitting tape is always a nice option for the sound for some things, yes there is a "tape" sound just like there is a 'tube' sound, but there are a lot of other faster, easier and more economical ways to go. Personally I would never go back to analog, certainly there is a sound and charm but the speed convenience economy consistancy of digital outweighs all the old charms for me.
When I am mixing I often run tape so some of my mixes are DAD, but usually I or the artist will opt with the DDD version anyway for speed and economy.

deaf pea · #17 09-28-2010, 11:57 AM

ALL of the CDs that we do here at the Joan Sebastian Studio have at least some of the music recorded on our Studer 827 24 track . . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by cavemusic

Not cheap...analog tape is getting expensive and hard to find...

True . . . but I've been using the same 3 reels of 2" tape for more than 5 years now! As soon as the producer(s) say that the music is OK I tranfer the stuff to ProTools HD3 at 88.2KHz/24 bit . . . and then re-use the same tape for the next project . . . If I ever notice a degradation in sound or when the tape wears out I'll switch to ANOTHER 3 reels . . . I've got about 25 reels of 2" . . . FWIW, I've got maybe 20 NEW reels of 1/2" that I don't use, if you'd ever want to buy some . . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruiser1964

...I used to record on tape in the old days - I've had a long break and recently started building my current set up with Pro tools. There is no way I would go back to tape...

In a semi-pro home studio you're right . . . but here at our studio it's well worth the effort involved . . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorago

You could also record digital & feed it through either an analogue board or tape machine to make it sound more 'vintage'

Like I've detailed above, FOR ME, it's better to go to tape before digitizing . . .

and FWIW, unless your "analogue board" has a lot of tubes ("valves") AND transformers, it's not to make a lot of difference in the sound ("to make it sound more 'vintage'")

deaf pea · #18 09-28-2010, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs

You're not going to get "warmth" and "depth" from multitracking to cassette tape...

True that . . .

. . .

Bassdirty · #19 09-28-2010, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noseferatu

Anybody doing this?? I'm looking for a cheap tape recorder. I don't know if I wanna go reel to reel or cassette. All I know is I need at least 8 tracks.

Help??

What the heck is a tape?

JK.

I got the old tascam 4 track.
I got it cheap about 10 yrs ago...about 10 yrs after they went obsolete.

It serve me well though.In fact I still have it, can't justify sellin it for the 3 bux someone might give me for it.

But Seriously, The digital recorders are so cheap (and good, compared to the ol' tapes)these days you should just get one of those.

cavemusic · #20 09-28-2010, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deaf pea

ALL of the CDs that we do here at the Joan Sebastian Studio have at least some of the music recorded on our Studer 827 24 track . . .

True . . . but I've been using the same 3 reels of 2" tape for more than 5 years now! As soon as the producer(s) say that the music is OK I tranfer the stuff to ProTools HD3 at 88.2KHz/24 bit . . . and then re-use the same tape for the next project . . . If I ever notice a degradation in sound or when the tape wears out I'll switch to ANOTHER 3 reels . . . I've got about 25 reels of 2" . . . FWIW, I've got maybe 20 NEW reels of 1/2" that I don't use, if you'd ever want to buy some . . .

In a semi-pro home studio you're right . . . but here at our studio it's well worth the effort involved . . .

Like I've detailed above, FOR ME, it's better to go to tape before digitizing . . .

and FWIW, unless your "analogue board" has a lot of tubes ("valves") AND transformers, it's not to make a lot of difference in the sound ("to make it sound more 'vintage'")

Cool. I'll bet you get some great results doing that. I usually record digital, and will often bounce the mix to analogue. What type of 1/2" tape do you have? My machine is set up for 456. I still have a few unused reels, and some I can recover, but I may need to get more some day. I would like to do more analogue work.