The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
MCI JH24 or Studer A827?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1
Lives for gear
 
I.R.Baboon's Avatar
MCI JH24 or Studer A827?

Hi folks,

I'm shopping for a 24 track tape machine.

If you could choose between a Studer A827 or a MCI JH24 for slightly cheaper, which would you choose (all other things like condition etc being equal)

Thanks! ........ I.R.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2
Lives for gear
 

outside the US: hands down the studer! mainly for reliability but also for the lack of 'sound' it imparts.

could be though that i'm biased 'cause those mci's i got to work in the old world were far less and possibly not in the best shape... - huge fan of the mci desks though: i got a jh536, but an a800 :-)
Old 4 weeks ago
  #3
Lives for gear
 
cheu78's Avatar
I like both.. Let's say that with the 827 you have the benefit of forgetting the calibration.. But as said by deedee is a "clean" machine.. And while it's not exactly like digital, IF I want clean I might go digital instead.

I had a Mara MCI JH24 16 tracks to 2".. if I had another studio I'd get exactly that.. Is FAT sounding, simply "right" for lack of a best description..
And the Mara MCI are pretty reliable.. they will last a long time without big issues, fixing them is rather easy as well (in case) and costs less than a Studer (even in Europe). (I also had a perfectly refurbed Studer C37, and I live in Switzerland.. not cheap.. But incredible sounding if you're looking for that vibe).



Cheu
Old 4 weeks ago
  #4
Lives for gear
 
I.R.Baboon's Avatar
Thanks guys.

Yeah, that's what i'm picking up from reading the interwebs on these machines.

I imagine the 827 was like the pinnacle of analog recording, but as i'm indeed looking for colour, perhap the pinnacle is not actually what i want.

I'm in Europe where the MCIs are less common, so that might also be worth considering.

hmmmmm........

A couple practical questions:

.....how noisy is an MCI? I mean actually mechanical noise? Ideally i'd like to place it in the same room as i'm recording in, but is there enough mechanical noise when it's running to put a spanner in those works?
I'll be mainly using it to track drums, so it doesn't matter if it isn't whisper quiet.........

....And does a machine like an MCI work like a 3 head cassette deck? So i could record to it and immediately read from the tape into my A/D and into the DAW? So i wouldn't need to rewind and record it into the DAW in a separate process? So basically i'll be using like a giant FX processor (of course i realize i'd need to compensate in my DAW for the analog delay).

(sorry, i realize that last one is a total newb question!)

Last edited by I.R.Baboon; 4 weeks ago at 10:19 PM..
Old 4 weeks ago
  #5
Lives for gear
 

cannot comment on the mci regarding noise: those i used were shielded off/ in a machine room.

if it's gonna be a studer (which i personally prefer: i don't want the tape machine to do much to the sound, i'm doing 'sound' elsewhere - but hey, 'all kind if beats for all kind of feets'!), i wouldn't hesitate to put it in the control room (punching in on my a800 works better on the machine than via remote) which also makes things easier regarding the cabling: repro head out (if needed, you could trim the two outputs differently for proper level matching or to leave some headroom for tracks which you may want to hit hard such as kick, bass, bass with comp etc.) into your a/d converters.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #6
Lives for gear
 
I.R.Baboon's Avatar
Thanks!

So just to be absolutely clear: the repro head can playback what you're recording a fraction of a second after it's hit the tape?

So my plan to use it as a real time (albeit it with large latency) stomp box will work?

And does such a machine have a "thru" function? By that i mean that it'll split the incoming signal before it hits tape and send a copy of the signal out again (before tape) so i can feed that back into the drummers (and other musicians) headphones?

Or is that what i need a recording console for? (i'm trying to avoid getting a big console, as i have a couple of Antelope interfaces that give me a lot of routing possibilities)
Old 4 weeks ago
  #7
Lives for gear
 

i'd use the repro and not the sync head 'cause if you're doing overdubs/punch in, that's what the musicians need to hear.

tape outputs then go into the tape return/line in of the analog desk or in your case, your antelope inputs. you don't need an analog desk for this; digital playback however will introduce some latency which can be distracting in the headphone/aux mixes, especially while overdubbing and you cannot just switch from sync to repro head as with tape...

___


pls allow for a somewhat personal remark: you seem to be unexperienced with 2" machines; am i wrong? if this is the case though, are you sure you wanna get one? i'd recommend booking some time in a studio which still uses tape machines, watch them calibrate, record test tones, record music, punch in, rewind, erase tracks/takes, put on new reels, do not forget to ask about prices/rates, where they get tape from etc.

i'd never ever buy a 2" in 2019, i wouldn't even take one for free! (ok, i got an a800 which keeps working, but it's getting less and less use)...

Last edited by deedeeyeah; 4 weeks ago at 11:23 PM.. Reason: edited for clarification
Old 4 weeks ago
  #8
Lives for gear
 
I.R.Baboon's Avatar
Thanks for taking the time to explain.

I feel like a terrible dunce as i'm not quite getting it.

Let me just first quickly outline exactly what i'd want to do:

Record to tape, and, immediately (preferable without having to rewind the tape) capture each tape track in my DAW for later tweaking and mixing.

So i wouldn't need or want to do any overdubs on tape.

So with this in mind, i wouldn't need to record anything from the sync head (which is lesser quality, right?)

So i could just take the output from the repro head (which is located physically away from the record head, hence the latency?) and feed that into my DAW.

So still a couple of questions linger:

The sync head IS the record head, right? So an MCI has two heads? (sync & repro?)

Does an MCI have seperate sync and repro outputs? If so, i could take the sync outputs and use that to feed to the drummers monitor mix, with the added benefit that he actually gets the tape sound in his cans.

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

EDIT: in reply to your edit:
Yes indeed, i have next to no experience with tape. But i'm not a beginner! (Gearslutz member since 2006)
My studio isn't a commercial one and i have the funds necessary to do the tape thing if i want.
All the music that i like and listen to was all, without exception, recorded on tape, and i've yet to hear that same sound from digital recordings. Think Marvin Gaye, Roy Ayers, Curtis Mayfield, Motown, Hendrix the list goes on and on!

I'm not saying it's impossible to get that sound with digital recording, but why jump through all those hoops if you don't need to!?

Hence my interest in a 2" machine!

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

EDIT v2:

A little anecdote: i remember somewhere around 1988: i was at a friend's house who had a little recording set-up including a Fostex R8. I told me he was going to play me a recording of an acoustic guitar he'd made. I remember thinking:
"This is gonna sound terrible, recorded in this amateur set-up in this damp, ratty basement". But when he pressed play on the Fostex, i was absolutely astonished at how good it sounded, clearly better than any CD sound i'd heard (remember, this is the late eighties with that thin, early CD sound we all hated back then!)

Last edited by I.R.Baboon; 4 weeks ago at 11:32 PM..
Old 4 weeks ago
  #9
Lives for gear
 

i fear i might be the wrong guy to further talk to (regarding this topic): although we seem to share a taste for great music
a) i'm not experienced enough on various tape machines
b) i was lucky to have techs taking care of technical details so i could focus on recording/mixing/interacting with the bands, so i'm simply not tech savy enough (while there are some folks around here who know tons about every machine there is!)
c) i was never much convinced that it's the tape that does/is supposed to contribute much to the sound we're experiencing (although there is no denial of the fact that even a very well aligned 'modern' machine such as the a827 does have some sort of sound when compared with 'digital')
d) there are so many factors which affect sound that i was always hoping i could get away from tape (and hence bought digital tape and fairlight pretty early on) - i did for the laegest part of my work a long time ago and i'm glad i did!
e) i've mixed music (in my own studios) which i now don't remember/cannot tell what gear i was using (analog or digital tape or hd recorders? did i mix on an analog or digital desk or inside the daw? standard or high sampling rates?) - further prove to me that tape (or any other gear) ALONE doesn't affect sound that much.

but yeah, i can see the point that if you're really into a specific sound of a certain era, then it's probaby a good idea to get as many things the same as they used to be - i'm just not convinced that the tape machine is that important...


p.s. afaik the heads don't have separate outputs: it's two sets of outputs which both carry the same signal but can get trimmed to output different levels; i had one set of outputs trimmed down as the converters i was using at the time couldn't handle very high levels - you can choose on the machine which head gets routed to the outputs - but maybe machines could get modified/set up so the outputs carry different signals?! i should ask my tech...

p.p.s. i'm using the spl machine head (digital tape emulation) if i want my mixes to sound as if they'd be recorded/mixed to tape :-)

Last edited by deedeeyeah; 4 weeks ago at 12:53 AM.. Reason: edited twice, p.s. and p.p.s.added
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10
Gear Guru
 
Drumsound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by I.R.Baboon View Post
Thanks guys.

Yeah, that's what i'm picking up from reading the interwebs on these machines.

I imagine the 827 was like the pinnacle of analog recording, but as i'm indeed looking for colour, perhap the pinnacle is not actually what i want.

I'm in Europe where the MCIs are less common, so that might also be worth considering.

hmmmmm........

A couple practical questions:

.....how noisy is an MCI? I mean actually mechanical noise? Ideally i'd like to place it in the same room as i'm recording in, but is there enough mechanical noise when it's running to put a spanner in those works?
I'll be mainly using it to track drums, so it doesn't matter if it isn't whisper quiet.........

....And does a machine like an MCI work like a 3 head cassette deck? So i could record to it and immediately read from the tape into my A/D and into the DAW? So i wouldn't need to rewind and record it into the DAW in a separate process? So basically i'll be using like a giant FX processor (of course i realize i'd need to compensate in my DAW for the analog delay).

(sorry, i realize that last one is a total newb question!)
Ther are 3 fans on the back on a JH24. One in each power supply and another up near the deck. You can remove the panel near the deck, but the fans on the power supplies need to run. Its kind of a drag.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #11
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
If maintenance is your primary concern - get the Studer.

If the sound is your primary concern - get the JH24.

You're going to have to pay the piper on one end or the other. Sonically, I'd take a JH over an 827 any day of the week. If I was responsible to keep it running though.....eh, I'd probably choose the studer.


PS - I mixed and recorded in the same room that my JH24 was in for 15+ years. HATED IT!!!!!! It's noisy, but it's doable, but it's certainly not preferable. Never want to work that way again, and I won't.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #12
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
If maintenance is your primary concern - get the Studer.

If the sound is your primary concern - get the JH24.

You're going to have to pay the piper on one end or the other. Sonically, I'd take a JH over an 827 any day of the week. If I was responsible to keep it running though.....eh, I'd probably choose the studer.


PS - I mixed and recorded in the same room that my JH24 was in for 15+ years. HATED IT!!!!!! It's noisy, but it's doable, but it's certainly not preferable. Never want to work that way again, and I won't.
I have a jh24 and a jh110. I made sure to put them in the machine room when I built out my new space . That’s where all the hot noisy stuff went. But I did use them in the same room for a few years it’s doable.

You will hear it in vocal condensers for sure. Just adds to the s/n

Drums electric guitars no problem
Old 4 weeks ago
  #13
Lives for gear
 
I.R.Baboon's Avatar
The JH24 i had in mind has been sold..
Now I've got my eye on a MCI JH 110-8.

What do we think about that one,?

8 tracks is enough for my purposes...
Old 4 weeks ago
  #14
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

I just wanna weigh in with one other thing:

When you're aligning tape machines and get to the part where you're adjusting the 10k record level, it can be informative to run program through the machine, not just tone. Crank the 10k adjustment up and down and listen.

You may discover, as I did, that MCI tape machines have a character to their HF EQ that's not unlike the HF EQ in their consoles. Sucky, in my opinion.

Maybe something to consider when it's MCI vs. Studer.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #15
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
I just wanna weigh in with one other thing:

When you're aligning tape machines and get to the part where you're adjusting the 10k record level, it can be informative to run program through the machine, not just tone. Crank the 10k adjustment up and down and listen.

You may discover, as I did, that MCI tape machines have a character to their HF EQ that's not unlike the HF EQ in their consoles. Sucky, in my opinion.

Maybe something to consider when it's MCI vs. Studer.
Makes sense Brent. But it's kinda funny that I always like the JH's, and ever cared for the consoles.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #16
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
Makes sense Brent. But it's kinda funny that I always like the JH's, and ever cared for the consoles.
I was assisting a name-brand fancy-pants Brit on a movie score and he said the exact same same thing, which got me wondering....
Old 4 weeks ago
  #17
Gear Addict
 

You're making getting sounds way too complicated.

But do what you think. There used to be a system called CLASP, but I don't think they're around anymore.

Steve
Old 4 weeks ago
  #18
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by I.R.Baboon View Post
The JH24 i had in mind has been sold..
Now I've got my eye on a MCI JH 110-8.

What do we think about that one,?

8 tracks is enough for my purposes...
I used to have an MCI 8 track / 1 inch tape, and I loved that thing, especially on drums.... I ran it in the control room.

I think something like this machine would work for your goals better than a late-model Studer (in conjunction with a modern tape formula it'd probably be disappointingly clean, neutral & 'accurate'..)

From the artiste list 'Marvin Gaye, Roy Ayers, Curtis Mayfield, Motown, Hendrix' you are probably going to be wanting things that lend a vintagey old-school touch.. 8 track on 1 inch tape is far more in that camp in terms of the format, technology & era anyway than a 24 track.

(Fwiw I do believe the Scully 280 model 1 inch 8 track was a US studio standard at the time used on countless classics, Motown, late-60's Hendrix etc... https://www.historyofrecording.com/scully280.html )

If you go the MCI route you might want seek out Steve Sadler in Nashville for a tech support subscription.

He once saved my bacon when a power spike took out my machine & he brought it back to life by, among other things, burning a new EPROM specific to the deck - probably the only person in the world who could do that for an MCI 8 track I wager.

With the MCI's known weaknesses are solder issues with molex pins on the PCBs and the dreaded red IC chip holders.... both are pretty easy to rectify / manage ( reflow solder joints / replace IC holders ) .. with mine the molex pin issue would crop up again after a while and I needed to re-resolder (maybe someone has found a more permanent solution?)

Last edited by RE201; 4 weeks ago at 09:04 PM..
Old 4 weeks ago
  #19
Lives for gear
 
Brian M. Boykin's Avatar
I second Steve Saddler if you go MCI. I have a 1980 JH110B and a 1977 JH16. I’m about to start in on the JH16 and bring it back to life with Steve’s help.

As for the molex connectors, I read a thread a while back where a guy was telling how his buddy was touring a JH24. He hard wired as many of the PCB together as he could. The guy asked him what he did when I broke and his reply was “it doesn’t break anymore.” I’m gonna look into this pretty seriously.

Brian
Old 4 weeks ago
  #20
Lives for gear
 
127Riot's Avatar
 

It really depends on the condition of the each machine.

I have my JH-24 right beside my console and it’s not noisy. I track in my control room and have no issues with the sound of my machine.

I prefer the JH-24 over a studer because of its character and they’re easy to work on. Of course you will have to refurbish it. Once it’s up and going good calibration and alignment is no problem. Just tracked a band yesterday on my JH-24 it ran like butter.

Although studers are awesome machines too.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #21
Lives for gear
 
crosscutred's Avatar
I have a JH-24, it's brilliant, the sound is wonderful.

If you don't want to do your own repairs then maybe the Studer would be a better choice, but you'll pay more for Studer parts. If the brain dies on the Studer it could get really expensive.
The Jh-24 is all pretty basic electronics with readily available parts.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #22
Studer by a mile, IMHO
Old 3 weeks ago
  #23
Lives for gear
 
127Riot's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by crosscutred View Post
I have a JH-24, it's brilliant, the sound is wonderful.

If you don't want to do your own repairs then maybe the Studer would be a better choice, but you'll pay more for Studer parts. If the brain dies on the Studer it could get really expensive.
The Jh-24 is all pretty basic electronics with readily available parts.
I love recording Drums on the Mci JH-24, makes the entire process easy to record and mix. As tape has a bit of compression and eq. The JH-24 has a sound that’s great for Rock n Roll!

Studers imo have a cleaner more polished sound that’s a bit more Hi-Fi. They sound great.

Personally I rather own an Mci JH-24 over a studer but I like studers too, just wouldn't to own one. For multiple reasons.

I mainly do 15 IPS to get more time on my tape and I like the low end feel. I notice when I do a session at 30 IPS that it sounds a little more Hi-Fi. Both speeds sound great for different reasons.

I did a video a while back where I recorded drums using 10 mic’s & 10 pre’s tracked to my Mci-JH-24.

The drums tracked below were done at 15 IPS,

https://youtu.be/TfcUSfyeYSk


https://youtu.be/bFlowOdR7S8
Old 3 weeks ago
  #24
Lives for gear
 
Brian M. Boykin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 127Riot View Post
I love recording Drums on the Mci JH-24, makes the entire process easy to record and mix. As tape has a bit of compression and eq. The JH-24 has a sound that’s great for Rock n Roll!

Studers imo have a cleaner more polished sound that’s a bit more Hi-Fi. They sound great.

Personally I rather own an Mci JH-24 over a studer but I like studers too, just wouldn't to own one. For multiple reasons.

I mainly do 15 IPS to get more time on my tape and I like the low end feel. I notice when I do a session at 30 IPS that it sounds a little more Hi-Fi. Both speeds sound great for different reasons.

I did a video a while back where I recorded drums using 10 mic’s & 10 pre’s tracked to my Mci-JH-24.

The drums tracked below were done at 15 IPS,

https://youtu.be/TfcUSfyeYSk


https://youtu.be/bFlowOdR7S8
You’ve motivated me to get started on my JH16. My console and preamps are transformerless so I chose to get the transformer love through the deck. This thread is no different from what I read when I was looking for a deck. It’s all reinforcement I made the right decision. My reasoning is that the later Studer’s and Otari’s are what digital offers now and if you want that analog tape sound then the older decks are the way to go. I had read several times that even the JH24’s are so close to digital it’s hard to tell them apart in a blind listening test. In 2019 if I want that I go digital. If I want tape, then Ampex mm1200, MCI JH16 or JH24, or a Studer A800. Oh, and the 3M M79. Too many people who’ve heard them all say Studer for reliability and MCI for Sonics. Also, if you go to Chris Mara’s website and watch his video on why he chose MCI’s, it becomes even more clear they are the wise choice. MCI used off the shelf parts. Studer manufactured their own parts. You can still get MCI parts from Mouser if you know what your looking for. Studer parts come from Studer and are in limited numbers. Hopefully their reputation of not breaking doesn’t turn into they break after 40 years and your screwed. Just food for thought.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #25
Lives for gear
 
127Riot's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian M. Boykin View Post
You’ve motivated me to get started on my JH16. My console and preamps are transformerless so I chose to get the transformer love through the deck. This thread is no different from what I read when I was looking for a deck. It’s all reinforcement I made the right decision. My reasoning is that the later Studer’s and Otari’s are what digital offers now and if you want that analog tape sound then the older decks are the way to go. I had read several times that even the JH24’s are so close to digital it’s hard to tell them apart in a blind listening test. In 2019 if I want that I go digital. If I want tape, then Ampex mm1200, MCI JH16 or JH24, or a Studer A800. Oh, and the 3M M79. Too many people who’ve heard them all say Studer for reliability and MCI for Sonics. Also, if you go to Chris Mara’s website and watch his video on why he chose MCI’s, it becomes even more clear they are the wise choice. MCI used off the shelf parts. Studer manufactured their own parts. You can still get MCI parts from Mouser if you know what your looking for. Studer parts come from Studer and are in limited numbers. Hopefully their reputation of not breaking doesn’t turn into they break after 40 years and your screwed. Just food for thought.
I have approximately 3 full tape decks in spares parts for my JH-24 everything from reel motors, capstan motors, tape break sensors, audio cards, phase lock loop boards, lamp driver boards, logic boards, all the way down to Relays, buttons, and switches and a lot of it is still readily available and still being manufactured.
So yes I agree the Mci is a good choice in that aspect. I can see why people would choose a studer as well. I also love recording Digital via my Burl Mothership and even my apogee X series converters did a great job.

The bottom line is the talent being recorded, that’s what makes a recording. Period.

I rather mix a great band ITB that was recorded on adats then a sh!ty band on a Neve console & a 2 inch deck any day. I know what would sound better at the end of the day.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #26
Lives for gear
 
Brian M. Boykin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 127Riot View Post
The bottom line is the talent being recorded, that’s what makes a recording. Period.

I rather mix a great band ITB that was recorded on adats then a sh!ty band on a Neve console & a 2 inch deck any day. I know what would sound better at the end of the day.
Touché. But all things being equal???? Best band, best vocalist, best arrangement, best instruments???? Don’t forget a great room with a quality mic collection. You’d choose an MCI correct? That’s what you have and I’m assuming your goal is to record the best. Right? In 2019 we want tape for the sonic soup it gives us and time and time again MCI’s, Ampex’s, and the older Studer’s win the day for that.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #27
Lives for gear
 
chrischoir's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by I.R.Baboon View Post
a Studer A827 or a MCI JH24
totally different sound and quality

JH24 is very colored and dark sounding IMO. It is also sort of high maintenance from what I recall. A827 is very clean, very quiet and very precision. JH24 is more rock and roll sounding. It is fat and more in your face. A827 is more spacial IMO and has more depth (subjective term). Musically they are both great, just different. If you get the JH24 buy a second one for extra parts.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #28
Lives for gear
 
cheu78's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
totally different sound and quality

JH24 is very colored and dark sounding IMO. It is also sort of high maintenance from what I recall. A827 is very clean, very quiet and very precision. JH24 is more rock and roll sounding. It is fat and more in your face. A827 is more spacial IMO and has more depth (subjective term). Musically they are both great, just different. If you get the JH24 buy a second one for extra parts.
I respectfully disagree with this Chris.. (despite the fact that the 827 is very clean).

I had a JH24, had a Studer C37 (and worked on other Studers as well as other mci's, Ampex, M79's)..

Mind you the mci's were Mara Machine MCI.. in my experience very reliable, it has a colour indeed, but a very "musical" one for lack of better terms. Very FAT sounding.. just right for my taste..


In the end is a matter of taste of course, but if the JH24 is from Mara, you don't have to worry too much about reliability. (and as Riot127 said the parts are still avalaible from mouser, etc).

What he did is clever, he bought spare Motors and other parts that might be difficult to get in a distant future, so he's well covered.
we're speaking about 40+ years old machines.

And for the record, I do a preference to have one without xformers (MCI JH24), imho it has a bigger lowend..
And I do love xformers and are mostly beneficial in some areas.. but my experience is that the jh without xformers sounds "better".

just my 0.02$,



Cheu
Old 3 weeks ago
  #29
Lives for gear
 
127Riot's Avatar
 

JH-24

People that say machines are maintenance nightmares most likely do Not know how to repair & maintain them.

I purchased my machine cleaned it up repaired it and have not had any issues since, going on 4 years.

I agree the JH-24 sounds great for Rock n Roll and has a super Fat & Analog Sound.

A Mara Machine is nothing but an Mci, he didn’t design it nor did he mod it. He just fixes them up and sells them. I purchased an Mci JH-24 fixed it up now it’s a Antoniazzi Machine in mint condition. I like what Mara is doing and don’t want to come across as being disrespectful towards him. He learned it, loves it, lives it. It’s not rocket science you can too. Dig in and learn it like he did, people love the sound of Tape. Work for it and benefit from the fat reward.

Whatever machine you choose get it, learn it, love it.

If you have a full manual that tells you almost everything you need to know. It has full schematics and beyond. I think the Mci Jh-24 is very musical and very reliable. People that cry about intermittent connections obviously don’t know how to use a multi meter & solder iron. Yea I could imagine that would suck.

As far as the transformers/non transformer machine. I agree with Cheu they made improvements during the years of the JH-24 and the noise floor is considerably lower then a JH-16. However the transformer/JH-16 sounds great! I am familiar with both and have recorded on both so I’m speaking from my experience. Both sound fat. I owned an Otari it had a sterile sound to it compared to any Mci.

I have a console loaded with the vintage Jensen transformers and a rack of vintage Neve, Api, Calrec, and Telefunken preamps that have transformers so I have more transformers then meets the eye.
Attached Thumbnails
MCI JH24 or Studer A827?-349aacf0-d095-47c5-bac0-30dff8709597.jpg   MCI JH24 or Studer A827?-e1f5a79e-0961-430f-a908-3f2c3598a3ab.jpg   MCI JH24 or Studer A827?-5be0406f-dd7a-4603-91d0-fe269c66003f.jpg  
Old 3 weeks ago
  #30
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 127Riot View Post
People that say machines are maintenance nightmares most likely do Not know how to repair & maintain them.


Touche!

But your statement is pretty funny. If they are so reliable, why do I need to know how to repair and maintain them?

You've had your JH for 4 years eh? I had one for 15 years with one of the best MCI tech's in LA, and by the end, it got so expensive that it cost me $500 nearly every time I turned the dam thing on. It became so MUCH of a nightmare that I gladly let it go for pennies.... And was grateful for the guy who was going to completely tear it down a rebuild it to the tune of thousands of $$, and countless hours.

Better him than me. I'd rather be making music than replacing molex connectors....

They definitely CAN BE expensive and costly and time consuming to maintain. Not all parts are off the shelf. And MCI's (JH's) can be very tweaky to figure out.

And the older they get, the more so.....


I do agree about the transformer-less ones. I preferred those as well. Bizarre now that I think about it, but true. And yeah, maintenance and tape handling issues aside, I'd take the JH over a Studer any day.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
WarmJetGuitar / So Much Gear, So Little Time
22
Saxplayerz / So Much Gear, So Little Time
7
Old Reverbs / So Much Gear, So Little Time
0
Nu-tra / So Much Gear, So Little Time
9
philip / Geekslutz Forum
2

Forum Jump
Forum Jump