Reel to Reel recording - anybody doing it?

Roger Andrusky · From: Waterford, PA, USA

I have a bunch of reel to reel tapes but nothing to play them on. I am considering purchasing a 4 channel 4/2 track on E-Bay and using it to create my own little studio. I would like to purchase a rhythm machine etc. and do some sound on sound recording. Is it worth the investment or should I go with digital recording? Thoughts?

Jim Eaton · From: Santa Susana, Ca

I have owned a Teac 4tk 1/4" r-to-r and an 8 cassette deck and now have a Boss 1180CD digital and would never ever again go back to recording on tape.
In fact, if your looking for an entry level digital unit, I have a Boss BR-8 unit that I would sell ya cheap.
JE:-)>

Robert Parent · From: Gillette, WY

I think once you try digital recorders that you will be sold on that concept. The editing features in themselves are worth the price of admission.

Dave Van Allen · From: Doylestown, PA , US , Earth

if you want to play the tapes you currently have then get the r2r deck... and get a digital system, transfer all the r2r's to digital, and sell the r2r deck on ebay again...

keep the digital to build a home studio around

Gene Jones · From: Oklahoma City, OK USA, (deceased)

[This message was edited by Gene Jones on 19 July 2003 at 06:42 PM.]

Tony Prior · From: Charlotte NC

I think Gene is trying to make a point here...

The digital workstations are the right answer to what you want to do.

They start cheap and go up to pretty high.
Lots in the middle, almost all of them will ggive very fine results.

Lots of posts on this subject, lots of players here using many different brands.

go for it

tp

David L. Donald · From: Koh Samui Island, Thailand

I have been putting mics in front of instruments for 40 years (very young too). I started when there were really no good transistor recorders, just Ampex tube recorders.
So I have seen the complete transition. If you don't count wire recorders. I have even done a bit of direct to disc.
I love high end analog to tape, but the cost vs quality is so high, and the equipment so esoteric and ridiculously expensive I have long since given up on it.

Add to that the inability to edit and have solid control of your music in a small package.
The low end digital workstations give quality all but those most decerning golden ears find aceptable, and the abilities for control, repair and optimazation of a performance can't be duplicated for under $500,000 in the analog domain.

I have a portable Sony DAT and battery mic, I recorded several anceint music players last weekend.
On play back ALL were exstatic with the sound...And these are people who HATE amplified music ;
hurdy gurdyists (vielles), bag pipers, and instruments that don't fit a ready description like Calbretts, Nickleharps etc.
But they were VERY happy with the digital 2 tracks I made.
Case closed.

Larry Bell · From: Englewood, Florida

I have to agree with David. I've been doing recording almost that long myself and remember when ANYTHING multitrack was out of the reach of the individual. When Teac came out with SimulSync you could do 2 track on a budget, but to go up to 4 or more trax in a single machine was prohibitively expensive. The array of digital equipment available for $1000 or less these days is amazing and the quality is excellent, signal to noise wise, at least. Some of it does sound a bit harsh to my ears, but the overall quality is excellent.

One interesting story: I know a guy with a pretty successful project studio who records a lot of acoustic music. He does everything digitally -- usually DA88's -- but then mixes down to ANALOG -- either an old Tascam or an old Ampex -- then transfers back to the digital domain for finalizing. YOU DO HEAR THE DIFFERENCE. It really warms up the sound, especially the nuances of acoustic music.

------------------
Larry Bell - email: larry@larrybell.org - gigs - Home Page
2003 Fessenden S/D-12 8x8, 1969 Emmons S-12 6x6, 1971 Dobro, Standel and Peavey Amps

[This message was edited by Larry Bell on 18 July 2003 at 07:46 AM.]

chas smith R.I.P. · From: Encino, CA, USA

For my last cd, I mixed to DAT, using TC Gold Channel converters, and I mixed to my 1/2 track Ampex 351, as a backup. We ended up using the DAT, to save a conversion, and that got run through HD/CD.

All of the high end recording I've seen always goes to 2-inch analog with the exception of the most recent, which went to Pro Tools HD. The function of digital, and where it excels, is the ability to do non-linear editing and the ease of delivery of product.

David L. Donald · From: Koh Samui Island, Thailand

There is some guy in Calf. who does Ampex 351 restorations and calls them Monster recorders or some such.
The recording level is much hotter to tape than the old versions, to match the latest tape formulations.
Also he can put on 2 track 1/2" or 2 track 1" analog heads, and has done something to eliminate transport resonances too.

I keep thinking I will send my old 351 off to him some day. I don't have it here, since it won't like 50 cycles 110v very much.

I don't like the Roland system's sound and the Yamaha ones are OK, but there are many good sounding digital systems.
I still like analog, BUT I am happy with the sound I get now, and so are the people I do stuff for, so I don't sweat it.

One good trick is to mix out of the digital domain and pass it though a tube stage and right back in. This gets a bit of analog warmth on the overall mix.
Even if it isn't to analog tape for it's sound qualities.

[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 18 July 2003 at 12:29 PM.]

Brad Sarno · From: St. Louis, MO USA

We still use the Studer 24 track machine to track drums and bass. Then we transfer to protools at 24bits with a good clock. Drums love tape but once on tape with all it's cool comression and warmth, Protools or Performer become the central playback machine. The key seems to be the hybrid rig with a digital multitrack rig (Protools, etc.) but instead of mixing in the computer, playing each individual track out thru an analog console, SSL in our case, and then taking the analog mix and recording that on BOTH 1/2" analog tape and also back into Protools at 24 bits. Then you have two versions to pick from. Sometimes the ProTools files will be picked but usually we choose the 1/2" tape mix. We recently finished Don Curtis' new album and agreed that the 1/2" tape mix sounded more natural and had a more pleasing sound. Then the 1/2" got mastered to disk.

The digital machines are great for tracking, effect plug-ins, editing, playing back lots of tracks, BUT, mixes done in the digital domain just dont sound as good as when the digital tracks are separately mixed in the analog domain. Maybe someday soon but not yet.

Even in the mastering world today, the state of the art process is to play the digital source mix out into the analog domain, then EQ and compress with analog tools, then convert back into the digital environment for final fades and peak-limiting. You might think that the multiple conversions would be degrading but really, NOTHING beats analog EQ and compression, yet....

------------------
Brad Sarno
Blue Jade Audio Mastering
St. Louis

James Quackenbush · From: Pomona, New York, USA

If you're recording in your home on a a very limited budget, you are probably better off with one of these newer digital units...You can get units that will record like 8 tracks digitally for like $200-300.....I'm with Brad on this one...I have a Tascam MS16 that is full 1" tape...I also did away with he noise reduction and run the tape at 30 ips..It's very FAT sounding on a lot of things...Like Brad I use it for drums and bass, and it puts a nice velvety sheen on thin vocals also..I then bounce what I have on tape down to a digital format that is easier to edit on...It's like having the best of both worlds..The sound quality of tape, and the editing ability's of digital....Jim

JB Arnold · From: Longmont,Co,USA (deceased)

I usually track to tape, vocals and drums anyway, usually all of it then go digital for the editing and effects work, but then I mix back through an analog board to DAT. Digital mixing doesn't sound right to me-I like the sound of real faders and board eq running things. I prefer everything to hit either tape or tubes somewhere along the line-the earlier the better.
JB

------------------
Fulawka D-10 9&5
Fessenden D-10 8&8
"All in all, looking back, I'd have to say the best advice anyone ever gave me was 'Hands Up, Don't Move!"
www.johnbarnold.com/pedalsteel
www.buddycage.net

http://www.nrpsmusic.com/index.html

Donny Hinson · From: Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.

Tape is durable, and still the best storage media for the long term. Digital stuff is great...for here and now. But in the future, 25 years from now, what will you play your CD's and DVD's on? I've got 100 computer games that I bought for a 486 machine 15 short years ago. No computer made in the last 5 years will run them. The recording industry, to foster "planned obsolescence", will probably do the same thing...come up with a new media form that will relegate the old to the yard-sale and flea market.

When the next music "media change" comes about, CD's will fall by the wayside because the industry (traditionally) only supports two types of media at any one time (cylinders and 78's, 78's and 45's, 45's and LP's, LP's and tapes, tapes and CD's, and now it's CD's and DVD's). If you want to keep it for 25 years or more, you'd better have it on tape, or be prepared to recopy everything when the media does change.

Roger Andrusky · From: Waterford, PA, USA

Thanks to all...I'm not sure I know yet what I will do, but I am leaning toward "investing" in a decent r2r and then adding a digital recorder to the mix. No pun intended. I'll search the forum for recommendations on each, but I hear Tascam alot. What about the Akai and Teacs? Isn't Tascam associated with Akai? - Roger

Ray Minich · From: Bradford, Pa. Frozen Tundra

I'm really learning some good practical stuff here folks. From what I read, digital is good, but analog still has value.

In response to Brad's statement that NOTHING beats analog EQ and compression, yet....

Could it be that digital filters in the discrete domain still can't compete with analog circuits in the "continuous" domain?

There's still something lost in the sampling, regardless of what Mr. Nyquist says.

Regards

Ray Minich · From: Bradford, Pa. Frozen Tundra

I wanted to add this about tape life. I was working as a DJ in a nightclub during the '70s. (I hate disco so dont ask...). In 1976 I bought a Pioneer RT-1020L R2R deck. Recorded 15-20 10" reels of music over the next 3 years of the clubs LP's.

Those reels hadn't been out of their boxes in 20 years until I set the whole system up in my studio last summer.

I was amazed at how well preserved the music was. I couldn't tell any loss of range or creation of additional noise. I've since put some of the stuff on CD using DART (Digital Audio Restoration Technologies) software. That helps to remove tape hiss and embedded turntable rumble.

JB Arnold · From: Longmont,Co,USA (deceased)

Teac, Tascam and Akai are all great machines, add Otari to that list. Tascam makes a good 8 track machine, the TSR 8 that runs on half inch tape and can be had used in great quality for $500. Stay away from the Tascam 38's, as they're obsolete-which is why they sell for next to nothing.

JB

------------------
Fulawka D-10 9&5
Fessenden D-10 8&8
"All in all, looking back, I'd have to say the best advice anyone ever gave me was 'Hands Up, Don't Move!"
www.johnbarnold.com/pedalsteel
www.buddycage.net

http://www.nrpsmusic.com/index.html

Matt Martin · From: Palm Harbor, Florida, USA

Hey JB, If you find a Tascam 38 for next to nothing, let me know and I'll be more than happy to pay next to nothing for a great machine. Those machines were made for some really heavy duty abuse in radio and TV stations awhile back. In fact, I'll bet you can still find them being used in alot of radio stations. Check out Howard Stearns setup.. The 38 is a tank and will live for a mighty long time as long as you take care of it. My friend has a Boss digital and it sounds like crapola!! I would love to take one off of anyone's hand if you have one. Next to nothing??... I doubt it!!
Unless you think 3 to 5 hundred dollars is nothing.... JMO

Cairo Zoots · Posted 30 Jul 2003 7:17 pm

Roger, If I remember correctly, Akai was associated with Roberts back in the 60's. Tascam & Teac were related, with Tascam being the more pro related product, and Teac was more for the consumer. Around the late 60's, Teac introduced the 3340, which was a 10½" reel deck that used 1/4" tape and had the ability to record and sync each of its 4 tracks independently (simul-sync)just like the big boys! Today, the Teac decks are difficult and expensive to maintain because of a lack of parts and expertise--and I'd guess that's true for most electro-mechanical machines today. Just another result of our throw-away society......

------------------
ree-00-dee-doo

Gene Jones · From: Oklahoma City, OK USA, (deceased)

...Cairo is correct, the Akia name was originally associated with Roberts...

In the early 1960's, Japanese electronic products were not yet universally recognized for quality, so the "Akia" name was changed to "Roberts" for import to the United States.

The innovative cross-field head reel-to-reel stereo recorders were exactly the same, except for the name plates. I still own one of each....I purchased the Akia in Japan, and the Roberts in the US.

I still have tapes of good quality that were recorded 30-40 years ago on both of these machines.
www.genejones.com

[This message was edited by Gene Jones on 31 July 2003 at 05:13 AM.]

Jay Ganz · From: Out Behind The Barn

I wish somebody would come out with a
good "tape hiss" simulator!!!

------------------

My new MP3.com page

Gene Jones · From: Oklahoma City, OK USA, (deceased)

Almost any good tube amp will do that!

Forum Index > Electronics		Next oldest topic :: Next newest topic