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
Best Tape Machine and why? Recorders, Players & Tape Machines
Old 28th December 2017
  #271
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deuce 225 View Post
IMHO - the best tape machine is the one you can run the most reliably with the lowest total cost of ownership. In our case that happens to be an MCI 2in 16 track. We rely on it exclusively for our Trace Horse "Live 2 Tape" Video Sessions.

Here is a recent example:



Best,
Tim

Trace Horse IG
Trace Horse FB
F****king BOOM!!!

/thread
Old 28th December 2017
  #272
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arseny View Post
I like almost everything about Steve Albini, love that Pixies sound, his philosophy, also watched all his videos on MWTM...

But I don't believe, the future proofing of his work is the only reason he uses the tape. Look, he is presenting himself as a rationalist, which is not so stupid in his position. If he had mentioned the SOUND of the tape as one of the reasons, that could open further discussions. It is not painles to hold a debate as we see it here. Lots of pro & contra reasons and, over all, the personal philosophies and tastes. And you risk to be seen as an insane retro illusionist in a tough business.

At the end he has also other strong cards like great sounding rooms and a huge competence in mic positioning. But I believe he knows exactly how much the tape contributes to his sound. He remains silent about it and just lets the ones hearing the difference enjoy IMO.

Why talk about it to someone who simply doesn't hear it or hears it but doesn't bother.

Al Schmitt has a little bit more courage in this, he stated there is still something that tape does to the sound.
OMG.....it's f***king OBVIOUS!

The difference is night and day, if people honestly can't hear that difference then it's not my job to try and make them.
Old 28th December 2017
  #273
Lives for gear
 
jjblair's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deuce 225 View Post
IMHO - the best tape machine is the one you can run the most reliably with the lowest total cost of ownership. In our case that happens to be an MCI 2in 16 track. We rely on it exclusively for our Trace Horse "Live 2 Tape" Video Sessions.

Here is a recent example:



Best,
Tim

Trace Horse IG
Trace Horse FB
That's the first time I've ever heard "MCI" and "reliable" used in the same sentence.
Old 28th December 2017
  #274
Lives for gear
 
jjblair's Avatar
I'm remixing some stuff I recorded years ago right now. Drums, bass and rhythm guitar to 2" 16trk 3M M79, and the rest to the 827. There is absolutely nothing about these sounds that are better than anything I record to current digital 96/24 or 96/32. Just not hearing it. And my ITB mix is kicking the crap out of the console mix to 1/2" that I did, too.
Old 28th December 2017
  #275
M2E
Lives for gear
 
M2E's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblair View Post
I'm remixing some stuff I recorded years ago right now. Drums, bass and rhythm guitar to 2" 16trk 3M M79, and the rest to the 827. There is absolutely nothing about these sounds that are better than anything I record to current digital 96/24 or 96/32. Just not hearing it. And my ITB mix is kicking the crap out of the console mix to 1/2" that I did, too.
Be careful jj, there are some die hard analog tape guys in here.
Your begging for trouble...lol

Marc
Old 28th December 2017
  #276
Lives for gear
 
jjblair's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by M2E View Post
Be careful jj, there are some die hard analog tape guys in here.
Your begging for trouble...lol

Marc
I'm just giving them something to think about.
Old 28th December 2017
  #277
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblair View Post
I'm remixing some stuff I recorded years ago right now. Drums, bass and rhythm guitar to 2" 16trk 3M M79, and the rest to the 827. There is absolutely nothing about these sounds that are better than anything I record to current digital 96/24 or 96/32. Just not hearing it. And my ITB mix is kicking the crap out of the console mix to 1/2" that I did, too.
You are re-mixing stuff that was recorded to tape.....maybe this isn't the time to be bragging about your ITB mix...

Why not re-record the same song using your digital gear, and re-mixing that?

I DARE you
Old 28th December 2017
  #278
Lives for gear
 
jjblair's Avatar
Hey, who's this terrible dee guy who keeps posting responses to my comments, and then deleting them before I can respond?

Anyway, he said "You are re-mixing stuff that was recorded to tape.....maybe this isn't the time to be bragging about your ITB mix...

Why not re-record the same song using your digital gear, and re-mixing that?

I DARE you"

Well, because the singer/keyboard player is dead, which I guess makes that idea impossible. But yeah, the ITB really beat the **** out of the board mix, and took much less time, too. I'm not bragging. I'm just stating that the ITB mix is much better than the one I did on the board. A brag would be that my mix is better than yours. I never said that.

Going to Oceanway Nashville in two weeks to make a record. Thank Christ the artist doesn't want to use tape. It's going to be bad enough having to tune the piano every day, let alone align the machine every time we put on a new reel of ATR, just in case the formulation is off from the last reel.
Old 28th December 2017
  #279
Lives for gear
 
burns46824's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblair View Post
I'm remixing some stuff I recorded years ago right now. Drums, bass and rhythm guitar to 2" 16trk 3M M79, and the rest to the 827. There is absolutely nothing about these sounds that are better than anything I record to current digital 96/24 or 96/32. Just not hearing it. And my ITB mix is kicking the crap out of the console mix to 1/2" that I did, too.
Boy, then I'm curious what converters you are using...
Old 28th December 2017
  #280
Lives for gear
 
jjblair's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by burns46824 View Post
Boy, then I'm curious what converters you are using...
Just the Symphony. Just make it sound huge going in, and you'll get exactly that back out. Any of the harmonic or dynamic elements I might want from tape, I can easily create without the noise and other headaches.

BTW, listen to Dire Straits "Brothers In Arms," and tell me if you think that record sounds small or dull. I remember when that record came out. We couldn't get over how amazing it sounded. It was maybe the first big record done on an early 3324, which is far from the best sounding machine there was. Current converters and bit depth kick the crap out of it. So, how did they get a record to sound that good and that big without tape, and with early digital?

When you can answer that question, you'll understand why I keep trolling you guys on this. Unless it's so bad that it's really detrimental to the sound, the medium is maybe the least important part of the equation. Ask the 24 million people who bought Jagged Little Pill and can't hear the terrible sound of the black faced ADATs, which make that 3324 sound like gold.

Also, ask yourself this: Why do my sounds that I get now recording straight to ProTools sound better than something I recorded 23 years ago to 2" 16 trk? Like I said, the medium is the least important factor. It's the ear, not the gear.

If you guys enjoy the workflow and you think using tape is fun, or you have carved a niche market for yourself with your machine, then have at it. But let's stop being ridiculous with the idea that it's superior to digital anymore. It's almost 2018. Digital has come a very long way from when I hated using it. If anybody can't make things sound huge, punchy and warm ITB, then I suggest that the gear ain't the problem.
Old 28th December 2017
  #281
Lives for gear
 
burns46824's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblair View Post
Just the Symphony. Just make it sound huge going in, and you'll get exactly that back out. Any of the harmonic or dynamic elements I might want from tape, I can easily create without the noise and other headaches.

BTW, listen to Dire Straits "Brothers In Arms," and tell me if you think that record sounds small or dull. I remember when that record came out. We couldn't get over how amazing it sounded. It was maybe the first big record done on an early 3324, which is far from the best sounding machine there was. Current converters and bit depth kick the crap out of it. So, how did they get a record to sound that good and that big without tape, and with early digital?

When you can answer that question, you'll understand why I keep trolling you guys on this. Unless it's so bad that it's really detrimental to the sound, the medium is maybe the least important part of the equation. Ask the 24 million people who bought Jagged Little Pill and can't hear the terrible sound of the black faced ADATs, which make that 3324 sound like gold.

Also, ask yourself this: Why do my sounds that I get now recording straight to ProTools sound better than something I recorded 23 years ago to 2" 16 trk? Like I said, the medium is the least important factor. It's the ear, not the gear.

If you guys enjoy the workflow and you think using tape is fun, or you have carved a niche market for yourself with your machine, then have at it. But let's stop being ridiculous with the idea that it's superior to digital anymore. It's almost 2018. Digital has come a very long way from when I hated using it. If anybody can't make things sound huge, punchy and warm ITB, then I suggest that the gear ain't the problem.
Brothers in Arms is one of the best digitally-recorded pop albums I've heard, along with George Michael's Older, although that was mixed to 1/2". Both were tracked on digital tape, though...which absolutely says something. There was a "sound" of those early machines that, though it may not be as pure as today's converters, seemed to work quite well in the context of a mix. Furthermore, these records were mixed through a console and with traditional outboard.

Jagged Little Pill...the quality and ingenuity of songwriting outdid the poor recording.

The last full-length record I worked on that was digital was three years ago. Sounds pretty darn good...but nothing super special, either. We were using an Orion 32 clocked to the first generation Antelope rubidium clock...the really expensive one. Not sure the sound would be as good as a Symphony.

All I can say is that I find analog tape to have a magical way of capturing (or not capturing) transients that seems to allow everything to "fit into place." Furthermore, it has a euphonic sound that I've never experienced with digital...as great as Brothers in Arms may be.
Old 28th December 2017
  #282
Lives for gear
 
jjblair's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by burns46824 View Post
Brothers in Arms is one of the best digitally-recorded pop albums I've heard, along with George Michael's Older, although that was mixed to 1/2". Both were tracked on digital tape, though...which absolutely says something. There was a "sound" of those early machines that, though it may not be as pure as today's converters, seemed to work quite well in the context of a mix. Furthermore, these records were mixed through a console and with traditional outboard.

Jagged Little Pill...the quality and ingenuity of songwriting outdid the poor recording.

The last full-length record I worked on that was digital was three years ago. Sounds pretty darn good...but nothing super special, either. We were using an Orion 32 clocked to the first generation Antelope rubidium clock...the really expensive one. Not sure the sound would be as good as a Symphony.

All I can say is that I find analog tape to have a magical way of capturing (or not capturing) transients that seems to allow everything to "fit into place." Furthermore, it has a euphonic sound that I've never experienced with digital...as great as Brothers in Arms may be.
It can have a Euphonic sound. It also has its limitations. So does digital. Horses for courses. What changed from my workflow when I stopped using tape was I made sure it sounded like a record on the way in. I used to print stuff to tape a lot more neutral, and process at mixing. Now, I get the sound I really want on the way in, and that's what it sounds like coming out. The tape isn't a factor anymore, which is something I don't miss. My repro sounds exactly like my input. Besides, I didn't want that tape sound on everything all the time. And as good as I am at analog comping, I don't miss it, and I don't miss the extra noise and sound change from bouncing. Boy, mixing this tune yesterday reminded me what a pain it is dealing with hiss on every channel. If you like compression as much as I do during mixing, tape hiss is so not your friend.
Old 28th December 2017
  #283
Lives for gear
 
jjblair's Avatar
And by the way, I'm A/B'ing a set of old RCA 12AX7s and new JJ 12AX7s in an LA2A, and I can completely hear the difference.
Old 29th December 2017
  #284
Lives for gear
 
bcgood's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deuce 225 View Post
IMHO - the best tape machine is the one you can run the most reliably with the lowest total cost of ownership. In our case that happens to be an MCI 2in 16 track. We rely on it exclusively for our Trace Horse "Live 2 Tape" Video Sessions.

Here is a recent example:



Best,
Tim

Trace Horse IG
Trace Horse FB
Sounds great!
Old 29th December 2017
  #285
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by burns46824 View Post
Brothers in Arms is one of the best digitally-recorded pop albums I've heard, along with George Michael's Older, although that was mixed to 1/2". Both were tracked on digital tape, though...which absolutely says something. There was a "sound" of those early machines that, though it may not be as pure as today's converters, seemed to work quite well in the context of a mix. Furthermore, these records were mixed through a console and with traditional outboard.
And yet, compare the sound of 'Brothers in Arms' to 'Love Over Gold'. Night and day.

As far as records tracked on digital tape, I think Sting's 'Nothing Like the Sun' is about as good as it gets.
Old 29th December 2017
  #286
Lives for gear
 
skybluerental's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblair View Post
And by the way, I'm A/B'ing a set of old RCA 12AX7s and new JJ 12AX7s in an LA2A, and I can completely hear the difference.
Which ones sound better?

: > )
Old 29th December 2017
  #287
Lives for gear
 
jjblair's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by skybluerental View Post
Which ones sound better?

: > )
If you like your LA2A to sound dark and woolly, and lack a certain crispness, then the JJs are for you.
Old 29th December 2017
  #288
Lives for gear
 
bcgood's Avatar
 

I like this one the best, good stuff.

Old 30th December 2017
  #289
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by vernier View Post
Wow that's in excellent shape . . looks brand new.
669 hrs on the clock ;-)
Old 30th December 2017
  #290
Lives for gear
 

Tape is NOT

warm
fat
wide
Blagh etc blagh


it is SMOOTH as F - while having a load of power.


tape requires work - a lot to get the best out of it - sometimes I'll run mine as a dual 10 track - to mess with bias etc.

but what other machine can load its entire settings for a session + calibrate just from a bit of pre- leader tape.

and F - it. it all ends up in PTHD a few ms later
Old 30th December 2017
  #291
Lives for gear
 
Silvertone's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblair View Post
I'm remixing some stuff I recorded years ago right now. Drums, bass and rhythm guitar to 2" 16trk 3M M79, and the rest to the 827. There is absolutely nothing about these sounds that are better than anything I record to current digital 96/24 or 96/32. Just not hearing it. And my ITB mix is kicking the crap out of the console mix to 1/2" that I did, too.
That just means you got lazy on the analog mix as you already have the killer mix printed. lol

Work hard enough and either medium can beat the other.

In mastering I reference everything I do through my analog chain but then beat it in my digital chain. 9 times out of 10 that’s what the client chooses. Why? Usually because it sounds closest to their mix.

Analog sound different than digital, pick whatever sounds good to you and what sounds best for the song. Don’t worry about the medium, the song is 1000 times more important. Sorry I know this is GS but you all know that’s true.

As for me I found the best built Tape machine is the Presto 850 I just aquired. I’ve owned Teac, Tascam, Ontario, Ampex and MCI/Sony Tape machines... nothing comes close to the build quality of this Presto. Nothing! Why. Because Presto made the machines for the military so they had to work in the adverse conditions, they also built all the machines for Musak, so the had to run 24/7 all the time... and they did.

There is a reason in 1957 these machines went for 4750.00. That’s the price of a house back then! There Ampex 350 was around 3500.00 by comparison.

Tape makes you think and work differently, it’s why I like it. It feels more musical, stupid I know but in the room everybody says, rewind that and play it again. I rarely hear that with digital. We are tactile by nature, we like the feel of things in our hands... we relate to it. Digital gives us none of that... hence the resurgence of the LP. People just want to hold the friggin thing in there hands and appreciate the artwork and album itself... it’s why books will never go away as well.
Old 30th December 2017
  #292
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deuce 225 View Post
IMHO - the best tape machine is the one you can run the most reliably with the lowest total cost of ownership. In our case that happens to be an MCI 2in 16 track. We rely on it exclusively for our Trace Horse "Live 2 Tape" Video Sessions.

Here is a recent example:



Best,
Tim

Trace Horse IG
Trace Horse FB
Thanks for sharing that Tim, sounds great! I love the sound of tape, has a way with capturing the feel of a performance that pulls me right in.
Old 30th December 2017
  #293
Lives for gear
 
jjblair's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvertone View Post
That just means you got lazy on the analog mix as you already have the killer mix printed. lol

Work hard enough and either medium can beat the other.

In mastering I reference everything I do through my analog chain but then beat it in my digital chain. 9 times out of 10 that’s what the client chooses. Why? Usually because it sounds closest to their mix.

Analog sound different than digital, pick whatever sounds good to you and what sounds best for the song. Don’t worry about the medium, the song is 1000 times more important. Sorry I know this is GS but you all know that’s true.

As for me I found the best built Tape machine is the Presto 850 I just aquired. I’ve owned Teac, Tascam, Ontario, Ampex and MCI/Sony Tape machines... nothing comes close to the build quality of this Presto. Nothing! Why. Because Presto made the machines for the military so they had to work in the adverse conditions, they also built all the machines for Musak, so the had to run 24/7 all the time... and they did.

There is a reason in 1957 these machines went for 4750.00. That’s the price of a house back then! There Ampex 350 was around 3500.00 by comparison.

Tape makes you think and work differently, it’s why I like it. It feels more musical, stupid I know but in the room everybody says, rewind that and play it again. I rarely hear that with digital. We are tactile by nature, we like the feel of things in our hands... we relate to it. Digital gives us none of that... hence the resurgence of the LP. People just want to hold the friggin thing in there hands and appreciate the artwork and album itself... it’s why books will never go away as well.
Larry, ha! It means several things: One of which is that I can fix a snare sound I was never happy with in Trigger, and that I can use the Ocean Way plug-in to get a more appropriate room for the song than the one we tracked in. Also, I didn't know about he magic of M160s back then!

I love the workflow of tape, but for what goes on in town here, you need to be in PT. You'd be shocked to find out who mixes ITB these days. Recall-ability is a huge, huge part of people's creative process now. Artists and producers love that they can live with a mix for a bit, and then make the changes they find necessary. Is it making for better records? That's debatable. But if you want to make a living and work with more than just the handful of niche artists left in LA who insist on analog, you have to learn how to record to DAW and mix ITB in a way that matches or beats tape and consoles.

There are a couple old school rooms here that stay sorta busy, but honestly, I'd rather be able to service the level of clientele that I have. I get to keep making amazing music with my childhood heroes and other top artists, and the people that I've seen insist on analog are 90% of the time new to recording, which means they ain't the guys that made me want to get into this career in the first place.

I still offer both, and I am about to plunk down some $$$ for a new console. But that's more about tracking, even though it will give people the option of using it to mix. Whatever % better somebody thinks the 800 sounds over the 827 doesn't interest me. It's not as big as the difference between a U67 and a U87. I'm all about the reliability factor. If this is somebody's avocation, or you're the only game in town, you have the luxury of getting a J37, which probably sounds like god, and trying to keep it work. If stuff isn't working here, people are gonna book somewhere else. And one of the very few things I agree with Steve Albini on is that the sound of the 820/827 is excellent.

My buddy wants to move his JH24 with a 16 track headstack in, and I told him no way. I don't care how good he thinks it sounds ... when it's working. I don't want that nightmare. I do most of the maintenance here, which means, I don't want to do any, which means, I want **** that doesn't need constant maintenance, which means, I LOVE my 827, if somebody insists using tape.

Speaking of price, those things were about $50,000 new in the '90s. I was able to get mine new for $25k, through a relationship with Harman, and it's been worth every freaking penny.
Old 31st December 2017
  #294
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvertone View Post
As for me I found the best built Tape machine is the Presto 850 I just aquired. I’ve owned Teac, Tascam, Ontario, Ampex and MCI/Sony Tape machines...
Is that the lovely 3 channel stack that I see in your studio? I thought it was an Ampex
Old 31st December 2017
  #295
Lives for gear
 
Silvertone's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumhead1957 View Post
Is that the lovely 3 channel stack that I see in your studio? I thought it was an Ampex
Presto 850... oops all sideways photos for some reason.
Attached Thumbnails
Best Tape Machine and why?-cf741c94-96a6-4a5a-b738-57b028cc5d69.jpg   Best Tape Machine and why?-16a35148-10e6-40b5-ab8b-839d567e0eeb.jpg   Best Tape Machine and why?-0922548f-d0cd-4f94-b4ba-eff7e5ff3156.jpg  
Old 31st December 2017
  #296
Lives for gear
 
Silvertone's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblair View Post
Larry, ha! It means several things: One of which is that I can fix a snare sound I was never happy with in Trigger, and that I can use the Ocean Way plug-in to get a more appropriate room for the song than the one we tracked in. Also, I didn't know about he magic of M160s back then!

I love the workflow of tape, but for what goes on in town here, you need to be in PT. You'd be shocked to find out who mixes ITB these days. Recall-ability is a huge, huge part of people's creative process now. Artists and producers love that they can live with a mix for a bit, and then make the changes they find necessary. Is it making for better records? That's debatable. But if you want to make a living and work with more than just the handful of niche artists left in LA who insist on analog, you have to learn how to record to DAW and mix ITB in a way that matches or beats tape and consoles.

There are a couple old school rooms here that stay sorta busy, but honestly, I'd rather be able to service the level of clientele that I have. I get to keep making amazing music with my childhood heroes and other top artists, and the people that I've seen insist on analog are 90% of the time new to recording, which means they ain't the guys that made me want to get into this career in the first place.

I still offer both, and I am about to plunk down some $$$ for a new console. But that's more about tracking, even though it will give people the option of using it to mix. Whatever % better somebody thinks the 800 sounds over the 827 doesn't interest me. It's not as big as the difference between a U67 and a U87. I'm all about the reliability factor. If this is somebody's avocation, or you're the only game in town, you have the luxury of getting a J37, which probably sounds like god, and trying to keep it work. If stuff isn't working here, people are gonna book somewhere else. And one of the very few things I agree with Steve Albini on is that the sound of the 820/827 is excellent.

My buddy wants to move his JH24 with a 16 track headstack in, and I told him no way. I don't care how good he thinks it sounds ... when it's working. I don't want that nightmare. I do most of the maintenance here, which means, I don't want to do any, which means, I want **** that doesn't need constant maintenance, which means, I LOVE my 827, if somebody insists using tape.

Speaking of price, those things were about $50,000 new in the '90s. I was able to get mine new for $25k, through a relationship with Harman, and it's been worth every freaking penny.
I understand work flow. Like I said most of my Mastering is digital these days... Daniel Weiss units are still hard to beat for mastering. I do an analog path at first but then beat it digitally.

My analog setup is different than most, by the time mixdown occurs the music is processed through about 60 tubes in the path... this doesn’t count tracking. So I’m into my gear for the “sound machine” that it truly is.

This stuff is not for the faint of heart. Don’t hit play while in FF or rewind, the tape will look like confetti coming off the machine. lol (not).

If I were doing this for a living, which in a way I guess I still am I would probably be all ITB... not for want necessarily but for flow. You have to be able to compete.

Luckily in the world I’m trying to create there will be little competition... or work for that matter. Ha ha
Old 31st December 2017
  #297
Lives for gear
 
Joao B.'s Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvertone View Post
I understand work flow. Like I said most of my Mastering is digital these days... Daniel Weiss units are still hard to beat for mastering. I do an analog path at first but then beat it digitally.

My analog setup is different than most, by the time mixdown occurs the music is processed through about 60 tubes in the path... this doesn’t count tracking. So I’m into my gear for the “sound machine” that it truly is.

This stuff is not for the faint of heart. Don’t hit play while in FF or rewind, the tape will look like confetti coming off the machine. lol (not).

If I were doing this for a living, which in a way I guess I still am I would probably be all ITB... not for want necessarily but for flow. You have to be able to compete.

Luckily in the world I’m trying to create there will be little competition... or work for that matter. Ha ha
Larry, I always enjoy reading your posts. That Presto recorder is absolutely stunning!

I've read some of your posts about what you're planning to do with it and I think it's an amazing endeavour. Labor of love for sure.

I hope you can share the process with us.

Happy new year!

-Joao
Old 31st December 2017
  #298
Gear Guru
 
Drumsound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblair View Post

I still offer both, and I am about to plunk down some $$$ for a new console.
I'd like to hear about this. What console, and why, if you don't mind getting into it.
Old 31st December 2017
  #299
Lives for gear
 
jjblair's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumsound View Post
I'd like to hear about this. What console, and why, if you don't mind getting into it.
5088 with Shelford modules and some Neve 1073s and 1084s. Probably half and half. I like the Shelford's so much, I would be happy with a full 32 channels of them, but for the comfort of other people using the room, I think 16 channels of 10 series pres and EQs is best for the clients who might use my room.

I love the functionality of the console, aside from the sound. 8 busses should be plenty in this day and age, I dig that the whole thing is class A and transformer balanced. Swift Mix is pretty damn sexy, too.

Like I said, I don't want maintenance, and an old console is definitely that.
Old 31st December 2017
  #300
Gear Guru
 
Drumsound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblair View Post
5088 with Shelford modules and some Neve 1073s and 1084s. Probably half and half. I like the Shelford's so much, I would be happy with a full 32 channels of them, but for the comfort of other people using the room, I think 16 channels of 10 series pres and EQs is best for the clients who might use my room.

I love the functionality of the console, aside from the sound. 8 busses should be plenty in this day and age, I dig that the whole thing is class A and transformer balanced. Swift Mix is pretty damn sexy, too.

Like I said, I don't want maintenance, and an old console is definitely that.
That's pretty damn cool. I'm sure you'll make many more excellent sounding records with it.

I'm sure our friend Jonathan Pines is happy too.
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
lanervoza / So much gear, so little time
6
nalin / So much gear, so little time
0
Circular Light / Low End Theory
21
blumediaprojekt / So much gear, so little time
2
FMNYC / So much gear, so little time
4

Forum Jump
Forum Jump