2 tracks tape recorder, revox studer or what

[mikante]

hi guyz,
I need some opinion here,
I'm looking for a two tracks tape unit, not for the mix-down, I want to record directly on it, track by track, then send each track into my computer to work on.
This will be for one project only, 10/12 songs.
any opinion?
2" tape and two tracks, but I don't have experience with that, studer are way to expensive, so I must rely on something else, revox, tascam, otari, fostex?
let me know!

[pinkheadedbug]

Look for a 1/4" 2-track A77, B77, PR99 or similar.

[mikante]

hi, isn't a 2" tape better in terms of audio quality?
I might decide to keep the machine for mixdown too.

[erikdrink]

[pinkheadedbug]

If you are only recording one track at a time, half-track 1/4" is better than 24 track 2" or 16 track 1". The track density on 1/4" is 8 tracks per inch, as opposed to 12 or 16 on the other formats. Obviously if you need to multitrack on tape that's different.

Moreover the 1/4" machines are much cheaper and easier to get hold of and cheaper to maintain and repair.

Also factor in tape prices and availability...

[NeoHippy]

Originally Posted by mikante

hi guyz,
I need some opinion here,
I'm looking for a two tracks tape unit, not for the mix-down, I want to record directly on it, track by track, then send each track into my computer to work on.
This will be for one project only, 10/12 songs.
any opinion?
2" tape and two tracks, but I don't have experience with that, studer are way to expensive, so I must rely on something else, revox, tascam, otari, fostex?
let me know!

obviously you just want the tape machine for its old "tape sound" dont you?

if you record it to a DAW then anyway, i wouldnt see an other reason...

do you really think thats necessary?

in the new UAD2 plugins you have a studer tape machine imitation....i really liked it! you can have nearly every option you have with a real tape machine....", speed etc etc!!

i know mastering and recording engineers who really use them even though they have a real machine....

have a look at it!

cheers

[mikante]

here is what I need it for.
I heat the sound of digital recording, it sounds flat and dull, no matter what you do, unless you have very expensive equipment which I don't. I can trade some of the audio quality with a little tape character.
I just want to give it a try, plugins are nice tools once you have the right sound and you just want to improve it. I really don't think they can add any magic.

[dimag333]

a bad tape machine isn't going to fix anything, save up 1K and get a ms-16 or a 8516-B for tracking

[mikante]

sorry, I din't mean that I need a tape machine to sound better, that would be such a stupid thing to say, I just want my recording for this project of mine to sound different, to have a overall complete different flavor.

Anyway, I found one 8516b here in italy for 600 euro, it seems in good condition, but that thing needs service for sure, at least calibrating, biasing, hope the heads are fine or the final cost will be a lot more!

here's what I found for sale that might be good.

OTARI MX5050 500 euro (it goes up ti 15 ips)
REVOX A77 mkIV 450 euro
REVOX A77 250 Euro
STUDER A88 1000 Euro
TEAC 3340S 400 euro
TEAC X-10R 400

[Adlen]

If you want the tape sound, why get something so 'good' it sounds almost as clean and transparent as your DAW?

I bought a dirty old Teac machine on eBay for £100 and cleaned it up. It's almost perfect now and gives the sound I wanted. I just need to buy some decent tape since all the stuff I bought has sticky shed!

[mikante]

indeed!
I want a good "tape" sounding machine.
Does any of you have experience with those I listed in the previous post, at least are they reliable enough to record an entire cd/lp?

[Bill Way]

Go read Dan Schmalle's Bottlehead site. I haven't heard his tape gear or his Tape Project reels, but I love some of his amp designs, and suspect he's on the mark recommending the Otari and Technics decks as the "prosumer" choices, especially with one of his tape head preamps.

WW

[pinkheadedbug]

The A77 and 5050s in that list are the kind of thing you want. Then get a tape like 911 and experiment with driving the levels hard. You may or may not want to buy a calibration tape to set the deck up yourself, but for what you're doing it may not be necessary.

The question of how reliable they are totally depends on the condition. The most important thing is the condition of the heads. After that you it's the drive mechanism. There's a MASS of information on the web about this stuff.

I personally had a B77 which I loved and had to sell a few years ago when I moved country. I just finally replaced it with a PR99 which is great.

[Trakworx]

Originally Posted by mikante

I want to record directly on it, track by track, then send each track into my computer to work on.

How will you accurately sync up the tracks in your DAW?

Even if you sync up the start of each track, what about tape drift?

[pinkheadedbug]

Typically when you work this way you chop up the laid-back audio into bits and resync each segment manually. No biggie.

[Trakworx]

Originally Posted by pinkheadedbug

Typically when you work this way you chop up the laid-back audio into bits and resync each segment manually. No biggie.

Yeah, I've had to do that kind of thing for people before. It was kind of a biggie to me - very tedious and in some cases I was never really sure that it was properly synced.

If "pocket", "groove" or "feel" are important to your sound then it could be a serious consideration.

4, 8, 16 and 24 track tape machines were invented for very good reasons

Best of luck,

J~

[mikante]

First I record the drums, put them on cubase. Anything else then will be recorded listening to the drums coming out of the computer through headphones, don't need to sync, just play in time with the drums, when I will then send the new track in my daw I will just need to align them, hope so...

[Trakworx]

Unfortunately, the tape transport is imperfect and will drift, causing you to lose sync over time.

A work-around just occurred to me:

You could print a click on the left track and each take on the right track of the tape, then group tracks in the DAW and use the clicks to visually align them. It would mean reusing the same piece of tape for all takes and doing only 1 track per pass, but would pretty much guarantee proper sync.

[mikante]

you mean that the track you've just recorded will be different from what the source actually was (time talking).

[Trakworx]

Yes, the tape does not play at the exact same speed every pass, so when you play back your takes into Cubase there will be what is called "drift" - the difference between the tape speed when you recorded and when you played it back, as well as the difference between the tape speeds when you did each take. Every machine has drift, some more than others. Usually it's the most expensive heavy duty professional models that have the least drift, but none are perfect.

[radeng]

The Otari 5050 might be your best choice, since parts are still available from the factory. They can still build up complete machines by special order. (as of last year, anyway)

[mikante]

Originally Posted by Trakworx

Yes, the tape does not play at the exact same speed every pass, so when you play back your takes into Cubase there will be what is called "drift" - the difference between the tape speed when you recorded and when you played it back, as well as the difference between the tape speeds when you did each take. Every machine has drift, some more than others. Usually it's the most expensive heavy duty professional models that have the least drift, but none are perfect.

then I'm in trouble!
I definitely need more than two tracks, since sync many tracks could be a nightmare!

[Trakworx]

Originally Posted by mikante

then I'm in trouble!
I definitely need more than two tracks, since sync many tracks could be a nightmare!

Unfortunately, yes. It can be done, but it's a lot of extra work, and sometimes you can't be 100% sure the tracks are properly synced.

Thinking it over again, I'm actually not convinced that my idea in post #18 would work... too many variables.

Might be better to record everything straight to Cubase first, then bounce every track off tape with the machine in record and repro mode, printing them to new tracks in Cubase. The new tracks will sync with each other, but will be offset from the original tracks by the duration of the tape delay.

DAW > tape in repro > DAW

If you want to go really deep, fellow Gearslut Brad McGowan has made these 2 videos that could be of help:

How to integrate analog tape with your DAW Part 1 - YouTube

How to integrate analog tape with your DAW Part 2 - YouTube

[mikante]

Thanks, very interesting!
but now I got even more doubts, this guy is actually recording and using the output of each track in "repro mode" to go directly into the daw during the take, he isn't recording through the deck, in this way there's some delay caused by the distance between the two heads.
So, in this way he can calculate the measure of the distance between the daw track and the tape sent to daw track and then use the value (witch I have not figured out yet how the hell he puts in numbers) on that plugin, voxengo, to get rid the gap between the two tracks.
what I don't understand, is that gap always the same during the whole take? it doesn't increase or decrease at his own wish? because that would make that gap unpredictable and not measurable, right? it's just a little delay, so you can easily match the two tracks recorded simultaneously just by moving one....am I messing things up?

[Trakworx]

Originally Posted by mikante

Thanks, very interesting!
but now I got even more doubts, this guy is actually recording and using the output of each track in "repro mode" to go directly into the daw during the take session, he isn't recording through the deck, in this way there's some delay caused by the distance between the two heads.
So, in this way he can calculate the measure of the distance between the daw track and the tape sent to daw track and then use the value (witch I have not figured out yet how he the hell he puts in numbers) on that plugin, voxengo, to get rid the gap between the two tracks.
Is that gap always the same, it doesn't increase or decrease at his own wish?

The tape delay is determined by the tape machine model (because of the physical distance between the record and repro heads) and the tape speed. If you use only 1 machine at 1 speed then your delay (gap) will always stay the same. I believe he describes how to determine the amount of delay in the video. It may require multiple views to absorb all of it.

[pinkheadedbug]

That is how I do laybacks most of the time... I arm an audio track and mute it then record the sound coming off the tape as I record the mix from the DAW. It's a simple matter to sychronize the laid back audio by eye and you obviously do not get the drift that seems to be the concern here.

[mikante]

Originally Posted by Trakworx

The tape delay is determined by the tape machine model (because of the physical distance between the record and repro heads) and the tape speed. If you use only 1 machine at 1 speed then your delay (gap) will always stay the same. I believe he describes how to determine the amount of delay in the video. It may require multiple views to absorb all of it.

ok, it's only a matter of delay then, not of time stretching, what I put on tape will have same speed and pitch of what I have actually played, so, as you suggested before, I can print a mark to help me synchronize the tracks or at least reduce the margin of error.

hey pinkheadedbug, it's a simple matter to you, because you have a tape machine and you know how it behaves. I don't have it so I'm questioning who does.

[vincentvangogo]

If you get an A77 try to get one that plays at 15 ips. Some only run at 7 1/2.

[mikante]

I think I will pull the trigger on that otari, it has been cleaned and serviced and the price is ok, plus, someone here said that parts are still available.

[E Campbell]

We used an Otari MX5050 1/2 track (quarter inch) for our record. All the guitars went through it. There was no comparison when we compared going straight to digital. The tape gave it low end body and brought it to life!