Login / Register
 
Did early tascam gear corrupt their hearing?
New Reply
Subscribe
#31
11th September 2011
Old 11th September 2011
  #31
Lives for gear
 
cdog's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 3,997

cdog is offline
What a poor sucker I am. I feel sorry for me right about now.
#32
11th September 2011
Old 11th September 2011
  #32
Lives for gear
 
andreaeffe's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: By The Sea :)
Posts: 522

andreaeffe is offline
OP, personally, I think ANY debateable amount of "ear damage" and/or abuse and/or "objectively bad sound" caused by ANY old Tascam or Fostex cheap/little multitrack will always be far, far, far less than the average damage & abuse today's average plug-in or average wannabe DJ on a cracked software program or average misinformation on a forum can cause and bring.

Also, any of that will be infinitely minor than the interesting ideas, precious demos, eye opening moments in song creation/arrangement/recording and in some cases true pieces of art (somebody mentioned Springsteen's "Nebraska", e.g.) that those same cheapo machines brought to the music community and the world.


A
F
__________________
The story of life
Is quicker
Than the wink of an eye
The story of love
Is hello
And goodbye
Until we meet -
Again.

(Jimi Hendrix)
------------------

http://www.myspace.com/andreaeffe
#33
4th March 2012
Old 4th March 2012
  #33
Gear interested
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 10

Dinosaursound is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimey1 View Post
op is a troll

besides nebraska - which isn't so good because of the format it was recorded on, but because the format it was recorded on captured the feel springsteen evoked in his songwriting so perfectly - i have friends in national touring bands that recorded their debuts on tascam 4 tracks or 8 tracks. Their music is out on woodsist, mexican summer, jagjaguar, captured tracks, and many other highly respected indie labels. We are talking releases on short runs of vinyl, 1k-5k records+itunes. If you don't know these labels then good, i'd rather you use a daw and keep the used 4 track market dirt cheap, and keep on trying to get your music on the next episode of real housewives.
bingo dingo !!
#34
4th March 2012
Old 4th March 2012
  #34
Gear interested
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 10

Dinosaursound is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboJets View Post
Sorry for editing so much but I felt the above responses were really relevant.

I enjoy the convenience of mp3 as much as the next person but John's right, there's so much information missing when listening to mp3's on an iPod or whatever. Right there is one of the reason's people feel the need to crank the volume up so much. But hey, don't forget also that cranking the volume is kinda what modern rock/pop/soul, etc., has always been associated with anyway. I can't remember how many times I thought my father was going to kill me when he came home to me cranking the crap out of the home stereo system playing Rumors on the TEAC reel to reel. People love to hear rock loud.


Also, Tascam employed so much of TEAC technology and parts it wasn't even funny, but that was to their benefit because TEAC was so far ahead in quality when it came to consumer audio products. TEAC had experience and had the means to manufacture

John's also spot on with regard to all the early consumer models for home recording; what would we have done without it all?

One good thing about modern consumer level recording gear though is (in a lot of cases), the end of mushy lows.
While the faster
sampling rates now being used are an improvement over the
pitifully low 41-kHz that was once the standard, it has been proven by
Dr. Matti Otala, that audio passbands MUST exceed the
desired transmission range (in human hearing, 20-Hz to 20-kHz) by a
factor of .25 (one-quarter) to five in order for phase relationships
in the harmonic structure of each note to remain accurate. (Note that
phase does NOT mean polarity) Thus, to maintain accurate phase in the
sounds we hear, linear response from 05-Hz to 100-kHz is totally
necessary, therefore until the sampling frequency used in CDs is greatly
increased, accurate phase (that which imparts "air", "presence" or
"space" to a performance) in playback is limited to about 8-kHz.
Also, Tascam employed so much of TEAC technology and parts it wasn't even funny, but that was to their benefit because TEAC was so far ahead in quality when it came to consumer audio products. TEAC had experience and had the means to manufacture
#35
4th March 2012
Old 4th March 2012
  #35
Lives for gear
 
erikdrink's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: Bjerkedalen
Posts: 1,994

erikdrink is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snatchman View Post
I don't think well recorded tracks/mixes to cassette/or 1/4" tape sounds any worse than mp3s..( probably just me tho'....)
#36
4th March 2012
Old 4th March 2012
  #36
Gear interested
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 10

Dinosaursound is offline
Huh ??

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
somewhere a few months back is a whole thread dedicated to how 'wonderful' the old 4-tracker cassette decks sound and how they exemplify the 'vintage' sound and how you can 'make a record' on one. Of course they trot out the tired old example of Nebraska, as if that mediocre sounding record 'proves' it. Search that thread if you are looking for an alternate view.

I doubt however that these people had their ears harmed; maybe their taste warped is all.

While I also retain a certain nostalgia for the early exploratory phase of my career as an Audio Human, as someone who struggled every day to get higher fidelity, flatter response, less hiss, and better S/N, I was glad to be rid of those decks.


You also have to ask who was really "brought up listening" to these machines. Aside from the over-cited example of Nebraska, practically no popular commercial records were produced on the Tascams and Fostex's. These machines dominated the demo studio market of course, but only the engineer and the band's mom heard those tapes with any regularity.
What is a "Popular Commercial Record " ? Whitney Houston ? Pariah Carry ? Medussa ?... ALL Guided By Voices releases were done AT HOME on four track is that also " TOO OFT CITED" ? OK How bout the Grifters , 424 Baby! Oh .."TOO OFT CITED" ? Hmmm Pavement Maybe ? Superchunk ? Yo La Tengo ? Throwing Muses ? Ty Segall ?...The Clean ? Flying Nun Label Maybe ? All Pretty Damn Popular were I'm from , perhaps you need listen to as Paul Westerberg wrote " Left of the Dial " more and get off your Granny Rock AM Radio Station.
#37
4th March 2012
Old 4th March 2012
  #37
Gear interested
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 10

Dinosaursound is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by NEWTON IN ORBIT View Post
Let's possibly try and get some perspective.

I started with worse...two track teac machines, and plain old stereo cassette. Cheap old Pioneer stereo mixer. Some foot pedals and a realistic reverb.

Then a Ross four track, had probably the most fun in my life with that little thing. Still have it, about to recap it, and take it on vacation with me this summer. Should sound great with some Telefunkens and API's etc..

Never got a Tascam 4 track, but all my friends had them.

In the late 80's got a Tascam 1" track, and a Tascam M520. Made many records that hold up well today with it. Paid my mortgage using this setup for a few years, then upgraded.

This Tascam machine can be heard on several major label releases. Damn those crappy Tascams...

Then ADATS and DA-88's came, which were worse...maybe way worse as far as tonality.

I'm not sure if this post was a joke... a bit confused. Tascam is not Studer....duh....but they made some good stuff that was utilitarian, and perfectly usable to make money with.

I have some old four track cassette stuff that sounds pretty damn good compared to what I hear from budget studios on the internet nowadays...IMHO.

Sure there is better that Tascam, but if you are careful, and have good source, players, and technique, you can make a damn fine recording with that stuff.

Definitely good for starter setup. Think about before all that, in the 60's and 70's what your choices were in that price range, and figure in inflation.

Those Tascams were comparatively light years ahead, even with the cassette vs. reel thing.

Maybe yours was broken?

Corrupt our hearing?

Nah, the poster who mentioned mp3's....those corrupt this generations hearing, as it's missing half the damn information that was there in the original source. Same with digital in general, but whatever.

I think the reason there is soooo much bad sounding material out there today, is that there are sooo many people doing it. And everyone can't be great at it, yet everyone releases what they do to the public regardless.

Therefore, you hear more crap.

The little Tascams might have added hiss, wow, and flutter, and not had the greatest dynamic range, but at least the info was there.

If Tascam, Fostex and others had not made the push to bring the recording thing to the home market as hard as they did, who knows if we'd have all that's available to us today. Maybe it wouldn't be as popular, or accessible.

My two cents.

john
MP3 Sounds Like a Fart in a Metal Trash Can...Your "Two Cents" is worth a Million Bucks !! Thank You Sir
#38
4th March 2012
Old 4th March 2012
  #38
Gear interested
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 10

Dinosaursound is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by leddy View Post
this is silly. If you use good mics & technique, don't bounce any tracks, use nr if need be, you can make decent recordings on many narrow-track machines.

The folks who made bad recordings with gear like that were either inexperienced and would have made bad recordings regardless of the gear, or they were probably trying to do more than the gear could handle when they could not afford more capable gear (bouncing tracks, pushing levels too hot because they did not have nr, etc.).

I've got a tascam 22 (not a narrow-track machine, but still a tascam) sitting next to my nagra iv-s. I use them both.
yes ! You are correct sir !
#39
4th March 2012
Old 4th March 2012
  #39
Gear interested
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 10

Dinosaursound is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by witchfeet View Post
I had a Tascam m312b mixer. I thought it sounded pretty good. Better than leaving the tracks ITB imo, but what do I know. I upgraded to a Soundcraft recently that seems to sound a little cleaner and the EQ is better.
I own an ALL ANALOG 4 Track "Old School " Recording Studio in Brooklyn.Our "Desks" ( How Pretentious) are a re-capped Tascam M312b for drums (sometimes summing mixer) , outboard mic pre's for everything else and we Mix using a Soundcraft Delta 200 ,modified by Jim Williams at Audio Upgrades.We obtain our color / texture using the Tascam & Outboard Pre's and then leave it alone and mix using the Audio Upgrades Delta for the "Un -Colored" Path and "Surgical EQ" if necessary ( we hate that shit too) Fletcher Mercenary Audio said " Mic Placement is the best eq in the world " we concur ! The M312b excels on drums but I'd have NO PROBLEM tracking & mixing and entire album on it...PEOPLE IT's ROCK 'N ROLL, That Goddamned , Subversive, Soul Shaking , Bone Rattling , Genital Stimulating , ROCK 'N ROLL ! Not Chamber Music.. A "Rock Album" recorded on 48 tracks with a shit load of Neves and an SSL IS NOT A ROCK ALBUM....It's a self indulgent, bloated , "Old Fart " , Castrated P.O.S...My opinion.
#40
4th March 2012
Old 4th March 2012
  #40
Gear interested
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 10

Dinosaursound is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by mellonhead View Post
crappy sound? Low budjet? Well imho you get a bunch of normal rock n rollers in a studio with the latest and the greatest of everything... 2 dozen u87's and all the 2'' 24 track stuff and the guitars are not quite in tune....all the tube amps have mismatched tubes and leakage on all the electrolitics....the drums have loose metal jangling when drumming...everyone is laughing and farting with tape rolling.... And guess what? Ya get a rock and roll recording.... Although id like the exotic gear...im sitting here with my 80-8....40-4...35-2....and cubase....and it sure beats the hell out of my sisters playschool mono cassette recorder...im thinking that these hand me downs are far more sophisticated than anything the beatles, stones, yardbirds ever could dream of...what makes great music? The engineer and all the gear....or the musicians?...>rhetorical....how would loui loui sound if it was recorded in the best studio in the world?
Thanks
mellonhead
right on brother tell it like it is...
#41
4th March 2012
Old 4th March 2012
  #41
Lives for gear
 
jimbridgman's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 641

jimbridgman is online now
I hated my tascam 4 track machines. I made better recordings as a kid with 2 vintage TEAC reel to reels and a cassette deck and kept doing sound on sound recordings, they were noisy, but way less than the tascam and fostex 4 track cassette machines.

I still to this day use my 1" 16 track Tascam MS16 decks (I have two, and have recaped and replaced most of the electrolics in them, and they have dolby s, which I never use), and I love these decks, they do sound awesome, in the right hands (mine) . I have had one of mine that I bought when it was just a year or two old becuase, the studio went under. The second one I got back in the early 2000s.

Now I will track things like drums, and bass and sometimes guitar to protools, send it to the tascams then back into protools, and I get a the best of both worlds.

I do have to say that having one of these decks is no small task either, because I am always maintaining it, since no one works on them, I have to do it myself. Other than that, they are great.

Oh and by the way, I still track, mix and master a ton of rock recordings.

So call it what you will, wanting to stick with what you know or something like that, but it is not nostalgia, since I really never had a longing for it. LOL..

Oh yeah I have three ADATs XT20s which I have had since they came out, and I agree with what was said about them being worse. I have used them maybe twice. I keep them, because I had a client the other day show up with something he tracked back in the late 90s, and wanted to redo some overdubs, and remix and remaster it, so....


Jim
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Schmacko / So much gear, so little time!
46
tommy78 / So much gear, so little time!
0

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.