2 inch or not 2 inch? Opinions please...

[Dr Funk]

Folks, I have a dilemma. I've gone over all the pros & cons I can think of and I've arrived at an impasse. I have a modest DAW setup - I'm running Samplitude 9 with a Lynx AES16/Aurora 16 on a Core 2 Duo PC, I have 18 nice pres, enough decent mics for now, a Shadow Hills Equinox for summing, and a pair of PMC TB1s for monitoring. I also have a load of nice plugins, including 2 x UAD1 and a Radikal SAC2k control surface, but no console.

Then, a few months ago, my audio world was turned upside down by the arrival of an old Studer A80/R 1/4" deck. It came from a radio station, and as soon as I got it running and ran my first mix out to it I thought 'Wow, this is it!! This is what I've been missing!' So, as an experiment, I picked a song that was ready to mix and ran the whole multi out 2 tracks at a time through the Equinox transformers to the Studer and straight back into Samplitude off the repro head. Once I'd worked my way through the multitrack and listened back, I was astounded at how much happier I was with the 'new' multi. I started thinking 'maybe what I need is a 2" 16 track to go in between my pres and the Aurora'...

Then, as luck would have it, I got wind of... a 2" 16 track A80 Mk1 with Dolby A, available locally. It came from the same radio station as my A80/R, and they were all purchased together in 1972, AFAIK. The pinch roller is shot, but the heads (relapped once) appear to be good. It hasn't been used for about 6 years and is currently sitting in the corner of a local studio.

And here's the big dilemma: I'm pretty sure it will take quite a lot of work and refurbishment to get the 2" running (not to mention the ongoing cost), and it's a world I'm not familiar with at all. Best case scenario is that every time I'd hear tracks coming back off the Studer, I'd laugh and wonder how I ever managed without it. Worst case is that there would be bugger all difference/improvement from the setup I already have (flying tracks to the 1/4", 2 at a time), and it could all be a huge, cumbersome, expensive waste of time. It could also be worse than what I already have, if the 2" A80 is in dire need of a recap for example. Not to mention the fact that I don't have a console, so input monitoring is a must, and I'm not sure how easy/quick that is with a Mk1 A80.

Oh yeah, there's no remote with this 2" A80, although it does have a remote from another deck (Saturn, I think) which apparently works ok. Probably just transport control, but I'm not sure. I picked up a Timeline Micro Lynx recently on ebay in case it might be useful - it can handle transport, sync and track arming, so if this A80 is fully wired for audio remote and capstan sync, I might be good to go.

Anyway, sorry for the long winded post, but that's the whole story and I'm now just going round in circles in my head with no solution. It seems the only way I will know for certain is to just go for it, and that's a rather huge leap of faith....

BTW, I'm posting this in High End because, although my setup isn't exactly high end, a 2" 16 track Studer definitely is, and I'd imagine the 2" owners would be hanging out here!

Oh yeah, almost forgot - you can hear some tracks done with my hybrid approach by clicking on the myspace link in my sig. They've just been uploaded in the last couple of days. The multis were all run out to the A80/R, 2 at a time, and the final mix was also to the A80/R, captured back at 96k on an Apogee AD16X and then mastered. As usual, myspace has butchered the top end (and the rest), but I think you'll get the idea...

Thanks for reading - I'd be really grateful for any input.

Frank

[Dr Funk]

Thanks for the replies guys.

Bryan - AFAIK the 2" A80 is unmodified, all original. I didn't discuss the remote they cobbled together in depth with the owner, but I don't think anything was changed on the A80 to make it work.

Randall - thanks for the kind words! I agree that tape is 'the business' - everything that's bounced off my 1/4" has come back better for it.

Some more thoughts - I did a session last week, recording direct to Samplitude. Lots of quick punching, which worked like a charm in Samplitude. It occurred to me that running a 2" deck alongside would probably have slowed my workflow down considerably. The live band stuff would probably be ok - just work off tape, monitor through the DAW and switch to repro to dump the required takes. For overdubs though I would have had to monitor off the sync head, and simultaneously record on a separate track off the repro head, but I believe a Mk1 can do this. Or take a mult from the pre at the patchbay for monitoring and keep the A80 in repro? And apparently an A80 is a pig for punching, what with its split erase head & all that... Then again, I have the DAW for that, IF it would all work according to plan...

I have visions of a potentially mega-cool system for a small project studio - a Mk1 A80 with mojo for days locked to the DAW, able to pass tracks back & forth between the two, and by switching from sync to repro, the timecode should shift along with the audio, keeping it in sync nomatter which mode is used. All controlled by the Micro Lynx. Could be great for attracting clients, especially as there would be no tape cost for them.

Then again, if it didn't pan out like that - what if it all ended up sounding no better than bouncing already recorded digital tracks to the 1/4" and back? With a lot more work involved in even simple tracking. At least with my current setup I can play with levels & get as much or as little compression as I want before flying stuff out to the !/4", although it is time consuming. I dunno....

Any more thoughts?

Cheers

Frank (my brain hurts)

[Drumsound]

I've dealt with old machines in "questionable" states of maintenance. I did it when decks were more expensive and labor costs with still healthy. My advice is to pay a bit more for a machine that's in more regular use and more ready to go. A machine that hasn't been used for 6 years may have a number of things going on that included mechanical and electronic issues. A few years ago I picked up an MCI because it was a simpler machine than my 3M and thus when it needs work its simples and cheaper.

I'd also suggest getting a console and being able to add in the DAW later in the process or not at all, but that's just me. I've been doing a lot of records lately that are tracked to 2" and then mixed to 1/4" and I'm in love. But I'm a bit of an analog romantic...

[Dr Funk]

Thanks Tony. Unfortunately a decent console is out of the question at the moment, due to space (and financial!) restrictions. I'm just based in a house, and I'm already out of spare room! Plus, I don't have much good outboard, apart from pres. I would love an all-analogue chain at some point though.

I understand what you're saying about a more recent, well maintained deck. Maybe I too have something of a romantic audio streak - but I love my A80/R and I'm now a big Studer fan!

Anyone here with a Mk1 A80 that's capstan synced and has audio remote? As in, remote switching of record, sync & repro?

Cheers

Frank

[themaidsroom]

i don't know if this is the machine or not, but is hard to get away
from 2" tape once you have worked with it: if it hits you, it hits you
it's a great time to find an A800 or A827 with low hours.....do that
and the console will find you



be well


- jack

[AudioFocus]

If you really want to do it right I think you would need a small console. Something like the new Toft ATB, or even a Ghost or a Mackie. That way you can just track all your basics to tape without touching the DAW, then dump to Samplitude. Do all your overdubs and bounce through the Studer back to Samplitude.

That would make it really worth. Otherwise, keep the 1/4" and do what you've been doing. It sounds great!

just my 2 cents,
AudioFocus

[u b k]

don't buy that machine without having a tech look over it, and/or playing with it for a day first. but if you have the budget, space, and need more than 2 tracks at a time, by all means get a 2" deck. my friend just nabbed an a80 with reasonable hours and relapped heads for $2500. the deals are out there, just make your decision and be patient.

btw, being a studer man myself, i can say that there are other 2" decks that are just as sweet to the music in their own way.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[studio1117]

I agree with the other poster, try one out. I'd buy the 2". I have a 2" MKII studer and is the cats pajamas. They really aren't that tough to work on. The manuals are online so that's a big part taken care of.
My further advice...sell all the pres and buy a real console. I mean lets face it, almost all the great albums from the old days were done on consoles with the built in pres/eq's. When Elton recorded Goodbye yellow brick road..they didn't bring in a bunch of pres, they used the stock pre/eq in an MCI jh400 series console. So the setup for them was like this roughly:
MCI 400 desk
2" 16track (probably MCI as well)
2 Blue stripe 1176's
1 PYE COMP
probably an EMT plate
and last but not least, great engineers and musicians.

Why do I mumble on here? Well because most of us in here have never made an album near the great sound and quality of that record, yet we have 10 times the gear. The fact is, buy a few nice pieces (like the 2" 16 track) and roll tape. Keep the signal path simple, think about your production steps and make great records.
Analog does give a sound that's like no digital box out there. I think if the machine ends up costing you $5k to buy and fix up, it'll be one of the best investments you'll ever make..trust me.

[Dr Funk]

Thanks for the replies everyone - quite a variety of opinions as always. I appreciate the food for thought.

A few have mentioned getting a console, but I'm ruling that option out for now. I had a Mackie 24:8 a few years ago (probably shouldn't even mention the M word here in High End...), was glad to see it gone and don't want to go down that road again! Unless I could get into something really decent, I'd rather not have one at all, although for the price the Toft does look good! Yes, I would LOVE a great analogue system, but it's a step too far for now. Besides, I don't think I could go back to not having full recall, even if it is ITB with summing.

I already know that the A80 I've seen would need some time with a tech - and I know that would be expensive (€90/hr here). Unfortunately I can't try it out first because the pinch roller has turned to green goo.

What I need to know in a nutshell is if there would be a significant sonic improvement by recording to 2" first, then dumping to Samplitude, rather than recording to Samplitude and then bouncing to my existing 1/4" A80/R and back. It really would have to be a big improvement to be justified, but I'm willing to jump through hoops and dance on my head for it if it's REALLY worth it. And I can't think of any way I can do a fair A/B test, apart from bringing my Lynx Aurora, computer, and some of my mics and pres to a studio that has a 2", recording something on the 2" and dumping to Samplitude, then repeating the same test with the same gear back in my place straight to Samplitude and dumping to the 1/4" and back. Then you have the difference in room tone (and other unknown variables), so I don't think that would work...

So, finally a simple question for those who have tried both methods - is there a BIG difference in recording to 2" first and dumping to DAW, or DAW first and then a dump to tape and back? If there isn't, I'm gonna stick with what I already have, because it's stable, it works and I have a lot of control over it. Besides, 2 tracks on 1/4" is the same per-track width as 16 tracks on 2", so in theory I already have 'the sound' - it just takes multiple passes.

The decision is almost made...

Frank

[T_R_S]

If you use it daily expect you repair costs to be 3-5K per year in parts + labour.

[andsonic]

Hey Dr Funk!

Nice to see you on a different forum.

Our studio has an A80 and Samplitude. I am perfectly content to to track directly to Samplitude.

One issue with the A80 is that it is a beast to sync. Back in the days of ADAT, we had to make it the master (it can not slave) and the ADATs the slave.

If you want to sync the 24 track to Samp, I would look for a newer Studer that will work with your microlynx.

I would continue down the path you've started and use the 2track for "sauce".

[soundbarnfool]

I use an MCI JH110C 1" 8 track for tracking and an MCI JH110 1/4" 2 track for mixing. Sure they require some maintainence but what worthwhile thing doesn't?

[Dr Funk]

Originally Posted by andsonic

Hey Dr Funk!

Nice to see you on a different forum.

You too! thumbsup

Originally Posted by andsonic

Our studio has an A80 and Samplitude. I am perfectly content to to track directly to Samplitude.

What converters are you using?

Originally Posted by andsonic

One issue with the A80 is that it is a beast to sync. Back in the days of ADAT, we had to make it the master (it can not slave) and the ADATs the slave.

If you want to sync the 24 track to Samp, I would look for a newer Studer that will work with your microlynx.

Thank you! I've been trying to get a definitive answer to that exact question for ages. That single piece of info is enough to finish off the A80 idea for me.

Originally Posted by T_R_S

If you use it daily expect you repair costs to be 3-5K per year in parts + labour.

And that prospect doesn't exactly give me a warm feeling!

Originally Posted by andsonic

I would continue down the path you've started and use the 2track for "sauce".

That is exactly what I'm going to do...

Sincere thanks to all who contributed - I've been toying with this 2" A80 idea for some weeks now. Trust a single thread here to sort it out... I haven't given up completely on the idea of having a 2" machine at some point, but it won't be this A80.

Nice one!!

Frank

[vernier]

Then, a few months ago, my audio world was turned upside down by the arrival of an old Studer A80/R 1/4" deck. It came from a radio station, and as soon as I got it running and ran my first mix out to it I thought 'Wow, this is it!! This is what I've been missing!'

Same thing happened to me and I ended up 100% analog.

[DAH]

What`s the tape coloration? I hear it everytime but didn`t hear examples though.
Dr.Funk - could you please post some digital material and then sample of it printed to tape, so everybody could just realize what it imparts to the source&

[Dr Funk]

Originally Posted by DAH

Dr.Funk - could you please post some digital material and then sample of it printed to tape, so everybody could just realize what it imparts to the source&

I'm afraid I have no digital version of our tracks - everything was mixed direct to tape. Even if I did a digital version, you couldn't compare accurately with the tape because you would still have the added variable of the AD conversion to get it back into the computer, and that changes the sound again. For example, when we had our final mixes on tape and needed to re-digitize them to bring to mastering, we auditioned both my Lynx Aurora and an Apogee AD16X at 88.2 and 96k, with soft limit on and off on the Apogee. The differences between converters were quite apparent to us, and changed the sound in 3 different ways. Even though I love my Aurora, we picked the AD16X with soft limit off for our purposes. It sounded more 3D, and helped to offset the extra bottom end which the Studer had added. Even 88.2 and 96k sounded different on both converters!

Cheers

Frank

[Drumsound]

Originally Posted by Dr Funk

I'm afraid I have no digital version of our tracks - everything was mixed direct to tape. Even if I did a digital version, you couldn't compare accurately with the tape because you would still have the added variable of the AD conversion to get it back into the computer, and that changes the sound again. For example, when we had our final mixes on tape and needed to re-digitize them to bring to mastering, we auditioned both my Lynx Aurora and an Apogee AD16X at 88.2 and 96k, with soft limit on and off on the Apogee. The differences between converters were quite apparent to us, and changed the sound in 3 different ways. Even though I love my Aurora, we picked the AD16X with soft limit off for our purposes. It sounded more 3D, and helped to offset the extra bottom end which the Studer had added. Even 88.2 and 96k sounded different on both converters!

Cheers

Frank

Why not use a mastering house that can work off tape? If I mix to tape I want the analog processing to happen before the project is subject to conversion!

[dsteve]

Originally Posted by Drumsound

Why not use a mastering house that can work off tape? If I mix to tape I want the analog processing to happen before the project is subject to conversion!

thumbsup

[stagefright13]

Be careful of buying something like that. I don't have personal expierence owning a 2". But I did ressurect my old Tascam 1/4 inch deck that hasn't been used since the early 90's. The capstan belt actually dissolved inside it. Took me hours just to clean the goop out alone. And of course the pinch roller was mush. So figure anything rubber is toast. There is a guy that will remake your pinch roller tho. Do a google search. But is not cheap.

And also figure if it is original and not used in a long time the caps are toast. And you will also need a test tape to calibrate it with, and a signal generator and scope to align it. If I had a project that required 2" I would hire someone on here to do it... But ymmv.

But that said I would give my left arm for a 2" 16 track. If it was feasable and cost effective.

[Dr Funk]

Originally Posted by Drumsound

Why not use a mastering house that can work off tape? If I mix to tape I want the analog processing to happen before the project is subject to conversion!

Good point. The mastering house we used can indeed work off tape, but I wasn't 100% sure about the alignment of my deck at the time, and didn't get a tech over in time to go through it. So although it sounded good here, I couldn't be absolutely sure about compatibility at the other end, and that was a flight away so I wasn't taking any chances. Besides, we were happy with what the Apogee conversion did - strange as it may sound it actually brought us a step closer to what we wanted to hear than the raw tape, and left less eq'ing to be done in mastering as a result.

Frank

[u b k]

Originally Posted by T_R_S

If you use it daily expect you repair costs to be 3-5K per year in parts + labour.

absurd!

dr. funk, if it's a well cared-for machine, and you likewise treat it respectfully, the average annual repair costs will be close to nil. studers are built like tanks and run like the workhorses they were designed to be.

i've spent far more money in the past 7 years upgrading software and cpu's than i have on the studer, to say nothing of the time spent on computer 'issues'. this is the typical experience of studer owners i know as well as those who post here, and it's also true of the better 2" machines from other manufacturers. i also have a blender from the 60's and a toaster from the 50's that've outlived every other kitchen appliance i've bought in the past decade.

in summary,

old things with motors: reliable.

new things with processors: disposable.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[soundbarnfool]

Why not just buy another one instead of calibrating? But seriously, this is a completely ridiculous statement made by someone who obviously does not use an anolog recorder (much). UBK is much more on the mark. Also, there is lots of talk on this forum about how hard it is to maintain the MCI machines. That's also silly. Back in the day when engineers were engineers and some of them wore white coats they used to mod EVERYTHING themselves and calibrate every two seconds. Not such a big deal really. Just takes practice and a desire to have things sound "right". That's if you have a "knack" for this type of thing. If you don't, well...

[Drumsound]

Originally Posted by soundbarnfool

Why not just buy another one instead of calibrating? But seriously, this is a completely ridiculous statement made by someone who obviously does not use an anolog recorder (much). UBK is much more on the mark. Also, there is lots of talk on this forum about how hard it is to maintain the MCI machines. That's also silly. Back in the day when engineers were engineers and some of them wore white coats they used to mod EVERYTHING themselves and calibrate every two seconds. Not such a big deal really. Just takes practice and a desire to have things sound "right". That's if you have a "knack" for this type of thing. If you don't, well...

I agree. $3-5K is major maintainence, like audio path upgrades and motor rebuilds and PSU mods. Even My 3M after a mojor rebuild only required about $1k a year (including tech travel) and that thing is a kinda quirky machine. My MCi has cost me about $500 in the 3-4 years I've had it.

[Dr Funk]

Aha! Just as I was about to walk away from the A80, I came up with 2 interesting bits of info. One from the Studer list - if the A80 has capstan servo card 1.080.374, it CAN do capstan sync (but may need to be modded further?). I checked the photos we took when we saw the machine, and it does indeed have the correct servo card for sync!

Plus, I got a call from the owner to say he wants to get rid of it asap and has dropped the price to €1000. That's for a 2" 16 track A80 Mk1 with Dolby A, but it needs a new pinch roller before its true condition can be determined.

I've been reading other tape threads, and the consensus seems to be that there is a considerable difference recording to tape first vs. recording to DAW and then dumping to tape for the flavour.

Goddammit, it's a total leap of faith, but I'm thinking about it again!

Frank

[lucey]

For that money you'd be a fool to pass it up. For a little more in upkeep you'll have something that does far more and better than a bunch of eq's, compressors and Fatsos. For my own music and the artists my wife records we track to both 2" 16 and 2" 24 trk. Ampex MM1200 with Flux play heads and there is nothing like it. $3500 a year is a crap figure. Maybe $1000, maybe $500/yr. It takes a certain temperment and some time more than a lot of money, and not everyone has the analog tape temperment.

A tape machine is part eq, part compressor and part harmonic/transformer smear (depending on the unit), plus a little noise. What it is not is a near perfect reproduction plus the (nasty) harmonics of digital. So if you look at that equation, and ponder what you're missing, it should be clear if it's right for you or not. If your work is super close, then why bother? If you feel like there is something fundamental missing that the eq, compression and harmonics of tape could give you at tracking then go for it.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by APOHStudios

Well let's see if I have the temperment! I just got a MM1100 and can't wait to get it hooked up. Just spent the last two days cleaning/detailing it, top to bottom.

Yep, that's the spirit!

Those can be 'drifters' even more than the 1200s. Are you dumping to a digital media or going commando?