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 18th September 2017
  #121
Lives for gear
 
cheu78's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
RE: ReVox C278

Progression in tape / tracks was:

1/2" 4 track Studer (various) last was A807
1/2" 8 track ReVox C279--the last ReVox / Studer machine with design features from the A807, primarily the left side tape servo.

The ReVox C278 is a credible machine but no where near the fidelity available from other machines from the Swiss maker.
The revox C279 (or studer a779) is a 6 channel mixer, not a tape machine..
Or am I not aware of a revox c279 tape machine?



Cheu
Old 18th September 2017
  #122
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
Thank you. I mistakenly put "279" in one of my descriptions. I have corrected it now.

I am talking about the ReVox C278 tape machine.
Old 18th September 2017
  #123
Lives for gear
 
burns46824's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan O View Post
What type of upgrades have you done to your channel cards?
Caps are so much better today that after you replace some, you can REMOVE some, because you don't need as many to pass the audio. The removal of caps is the biggest reason for the sonic improvement of this upgrade. As my tech says, the best cap is no cap.

All of my channel cards were upgraded by Waltzing Bear Audio in Portland, OR. Cost me a little over $2k, I believe. This is a fully transformerless machine operating with modern specs...about as clean as it gets for tape. Some people don't want that, but it sure sounds good to me. Having said that, I like the colorful sound of Studer A80s, for example, too.

Of course, the transports of the MTR-90s aren't perfect, but they're not bad. I bet an A820 or an A827 with some mods would sound killer if you're going for transparent sound.

At the end of the day...it's tape! It's gonna be great, even if you're recording on cassette!
Old 18th September 2017
  #124
Lives for gear
 
vernier's Avatar
Wow - amazed people still talking tape recorders.
Old 18th September 2017
  #125
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by vernier View Post
Wow - amazed people still talking tape recorders.
There's now this whole lo-fi/no-fi movement of people who want the sound of tape even though many of them aren't sure what that is.
Old 18th September 2017
  #126
Lives for gear
 
burns46824's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by vernier View Post
Wow - amazed people still talking tape recorders.
Tape is my medium of choice. I wouldn't even consider recording an album on a DAW anymore.

Although what Brent wrote is true about the lo-fi/tape-fi movement, my studio is analog hi-fi. I own a couple of ATR-102s, one of which is a 1" two-track, for mixdown. We've also got an A80 VU 1/2" machine...and a whole bunch o' nice outboard equipment like an EMT 250, EMT 140S, the list is quite long. Tape is still relevant and, in some ways, sounds better than ever. Loving ATR's recent batches.
Old 18th September 2017
  #127
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by burns46824 View Post
Although what Brent wrote is true about the lo-fi/tape-fi movement, my studio is analog hi-fi.
Wasn't meaning to include you. Your stuff sounds great.
Old 18th September 2017
  #128
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
There's now this whole lo-fi/no-fi movement of people who want the sound of tape even though many of them aren't sure what that is.
They hear a 1978 mix they like that was tracked with six condensor mics in a room that was (type in shape/acoustics/address etc here) connected direct to the stock inputs of an (MCi428, 500, SSL 4000g, Coronado, Neve, noisy-old-custom 1962 console, Speck, Sound Workshop, API) routed via out the bus outs ... or maybe a couple of things at the directs but you know I didn't really write it down....and patch bays to six tracks of a 2" 24trk machine (ANY brand name will do here as far as I'm concerned) , at your preferred level to tape fader-to-tape track ratio preferences..... with your noise reduction (type off or on here and whether it's dbx/dolby or no nr at 15 or 30 and your preferred mrl tape flavor) with a further set of 17 overdubs one-at-a-time through the (console brand/model here), with 14 of the tracks having a limiter (brand/model here) at the insert point of console channel 5 and then comped into the tape recorder track 22 via two passes through the machine and console and patch bay with ALL the console levels/trims/eq/bus routing changed to accomodate the bounce.... perhaps with vca automation for the comp tracks and touch of compressor/limiter (brand/model here).... which after enough comps, you get "that vca sound" if you're picky enough to notice.... with then erasing the individual tracks that were initially used to make the comps and by now the tape has been played back at least 127 times in the course of the 4 week project and the tape is changing sound a bit or a lot, thereby causing you to do the normal reach to the console to re-eq stuff that's not quite sounding like it did several weeks ago off the tape, or resort to the handy multiple/sync machine method to somewhat preserve fidelity vs weeks of play.. which will still start sounding slightly "different" and eventually may turn into mojo but you don't really know right now because you're too close to the project and only halfway in and you're not even sure that cool idea you tried 3 weeks ago will work at mix.. or even for sure how you did it but.. time is running out... and then, with or without vca in the path, re-set the console for mix ... really screwing around with your gainstaging to get the sweet spot vs number of open console channels for remix from tape tracks and outboard....into an Mci quarter inch/half inch or ampex atr 2track (or type in brand/model here) and over the course of a few days, perfect... with or without automation.. a mix that is either satisfactory or abandoned at some point... often driving the faders like a car, letting some channels go into noisy sphere because it's somehow adding something nice, rearranging some effects to individual tracks rather than on the sends or returns...with a hoopla of other outboard effects at the inserts of the console (brands/models/insert points/level settings at the outboard and console here), ......although curiously to future generations....nothing...nothing on the main out bus inserts of the console.....nothing.....back to the flow.....and the Ampex running at (type speed here) and the multitrack varispeeded (or not) for effect (type speed here) and the 2track tapes driven over to Grundman (or type me here) for a day of cutting tests until the one that floats your boat is found, with the cutting rushed to the plant and eventually 3 days later, the stamper of choice is decided on and then 6 days later, the pressings are available to check for consistency etc and then you have your final stereo or mono product that you are more than glad to have out of your hair because you're fried.

And then a kid walks in the next century and says "I like that sound... what tape recorder should I buy ......."

And some of the guys who actually own a few tape machines in the next century actually pop out a brand/model name as a recommendation...as an isolated thing!!!! You cruel pranksters!
Old 19th September 2017
  #129
Lives for gear
 
burns46824's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
Wasn't meaning to include you. Your stuff sounds great.
Thanks. I just wanted to categorize modern tape proponents...

Generally, those who are trying to achieve a hi-fi sound on tape these days are older than 50. Most guys in their 30s and 40s seem to want to track to tape for the "vibe" and then dump to ProTools. I'm in the prior camp, obviously...but not over 50. There are few exceptions!
Old 19th September 2017
  #130
Lives for gear
 

One sentence with almost 600 words ... do you really expect anyone to read that?

Blow?
Old 19th September 2017
  #131
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumbergh View Post
One sentence with almost 600 words ... do you really expect anyone to read that?

Blow?
600 words.... read it...learn it....know it...live it
Old 19th September 2017
  #132
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by burns46824 View Post
Caps are so much better today that after you replace some, you can REMOVE some, because you don't need as many to pass the audio. The removal of caps is the biggest reason for the sonic improvement of this upgrade. As my tech says, the best cap is no cap.

And who is your tech? And what equipment has he designed that the world adores? Caps are in the path FOR A GOOD REASON. Removing them is usually NOT a good idea..

"don't believe the hype"

All of my channel cards were upgraded by Waltzing Bear Audio in Portland, OR. Cost me a little over $2k, I believe. This is a fully transformerless machine operating with modern specs...about as clean as it gets for tape. Some people don't want that, but it sure sounds good to me. Having said that, I like the colorful sound of Studer A80s, for example, too.

Of course, the transports of the MTR-90s aren't perfect, but they're not bad. I bet an A820 or an A827 with some mods would sound killer if you're going for transparent sound.

At the end of the day...it's tape! It's gonna be great, even if you're recording on cassette!

And who is your tech? And what equipment has he designed that the world adores? Caps are in the path FOR A GOOD REASON. Removing them is usually NOT a good idea.. They said that about the J 9000, "no caps in the audio path" That console has NOT been too popular..

"don't believe the hype"
Old 19th September 2017
  #133
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
The Noodle!
Old 19th September 2017
  #134
Lives for gear
 
burns46824's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelAngelo View Post
And who is your tech? And what equipment has he designed that the world adores? Caps are in the path FOR A GOOD REASON. Removing them is usually NOT a good idea.. They said that about the J 9000, "no caps in the audio path" That console has NOT been too popular..

"don't believe the hype"
Hey Mike -

I'm not believing the hype, just believing my ears! Huge difference!

Last edited by burns46824; 19th September 2017 at 05:10 PM..
Old 19th September 2017
  #135
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by vernier View Post
Wow - amazed people still talking tape recorders.
A "good" tape machine is the best effects box there is. The way it sounds partially defines classy audio. I wish I had one with the playback head after the record head as an effects send out of my DAW.

I will define good as better than 16 track 1/2" Tascam tape machine. 25 years ago that was the poor mans tracking machine. Used one many a times,
Old 19th September 2017
  #136
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by vernier View Post
Wow - amazed people still talking tape recorders.
It's tried and true. It's like tube compressors or inductor eq's, they will all be prized regardless of what digital does. I am not knocking DAWs, but for raw, live sounding stuff, the anti-digital sound has something special to it that digital robs it of. Whether it's adding something or just keeping it as is without conversion, doesn't matter. And it's not just in my head, I have guys who are totally in the box and listen to my mixes and are amazed at the quality.

Perhaps it's due to just hearing something different sounding, but the impression is what it is.
Old 19th September 2017
  #137
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoodle View Post
They hear a 1978 mix they like that was tracked with six condensor mics in a room that was (type in shape/acoustics/address etc here) connected direct to the stock inputs of an (MCi428, 500, SSL 4000g, Coronado, Neve, noisy-old-custom 1962 console, Speck, Sound Workshop, API) routed via out the bus outs ... or maybe a couple of things at the directs but you know I didn't really write it down....and patch bays to six tracks of a 2" 24trk machine (ANY brand name will do here as far as I'm concerned) , at your preferred level to tape fader-to-tape track ratio preferences..... with your noise reduction (type off or on here and whether it's dbx/dolby or no nr at 15 or 30 and your preferred mrl tape flavor) with a further set of 17 overdubs one-at-a-time through the (console brand/model here), with 14 of the tracks having a limiter (brand/model here) at the insert point of console channel 5 and then comped into the tape recorder track 22 via two passes through the machine and console and patch bay with ALL the console levels/trims/eq/bus routing changed to accomodate the bounce.... perhaps with vca automation for the comp tracks and touch of compressor/limiter (brand/model here).... which after enough comps, you get "that vca sound" if you're picky enough to notice.... with then erasing the individual tracks that were initially used to make the comps and by now the tape has been played back at least 127 times in the course of the 4 week project and the tape is changing sound a bit or a lot, thereby causing you to do the normal reach to the console to re-eq stuff that's not quite sounding like it did several weeks ago off the tape, or resort to the handy multiple/sync machine method to somewhat preserve fidelity vs weeks of play.. which will still start sounding slightly "different" and eventually may turn into mojo but you don't really know right now because you're too close to the project and only halfway in and you're not even sure that cool idea you tried 3 weeks ago will work at mix.. or even for sure how you did it but.. time is running out... and then, with or without vca in the path, re-set the console for mix ... really screwing around with your gainstaging to get the sweet spot vs number of open console channels for remix from tape tracks and outboard....into an Mci quarter inch/half inch or ampex atr 2track (or type in brand/model here) and over the course of a few days, perfect... with or without automation.. a mix that is either satisfactory or abandoned at some point... often driving the faders like a car, letting some channels go into noisy sphere because it's somehow adding something nice, rearranging some effects to individual tracks rather than on the sends or returns...with a hoopla of other outboard effects at the inserts of the console (brands/models/insert points/level settings at the outboard and console here), ......although curiously to future generations....nothing...nothing on the main out bus inserts of the console.....nothing.....back to the flow.....and the Ampex running at (type speed here) and the multitrack varispeeded (or not) for effect (type speed here) and the 2track tapes driven over to Grundman (or type me here) for a day of cutting tests until the one that floats your boat is found, with the cutting rushed to the plant and eventually 3 days later, the stamper of choice is decided on and then 6 days later, the pressings are available to check for consistency etc and then you have your final stereo or mono product that you are more than glad to have out of your hair because you're fried.

And then a kid walks in the next century and says "I like that sound... what tape recorder should I buy ......."

And some of the guys who actually own a few tape machines in the next century actually pop out a brand/model name as a recommendation...as an isolated thing!!!! You cruel pranksters!
I get your point, but if the idea is that the sound is the result of multiple factors, I don't see how you're going to be able to approximate it without some of the key ingredients.

I don't understand how you can re-create what you just posted without send and returns on a console and a couple of tape machines.

Yeah, just having a tape machine won't get you that sound any more than just having an electric guitar will make you sound like Hendrix, but you damn sure aren't going to have a chance of sounding like Hendrix without one.
Old 19th September 2017
  #138
Lives for gear
 
vernier's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
There's now this whole lo-fi/no-fi movement of people who want the sound of tape even though many of them aren't sure what that is.
Everyone is searching for "the sound". It's what we want.
Old 20th September 2017
  #139
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drpeacock View Post
I get your point, but if the idea is that the sound is the result of multiple factors, I don't see how you're going to be able to approximate it without some of the key ingredients.
I agree... "some key ingredients". Not one single piece and CERTAINLY, not just the tape recorder.
Old 20th September 2017
  #140
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by vernier View Post
Everyone is searching for "the sound". It's what we want.
Sometimes, I describe the exact path for the old 1967 hit "Spooky" or "Stormy" by the Classics iv. The console, tape machine, path, the way the comps were done and in pretty much what order, where doubling, tripling was done... and then I get responses......."well, I'm not interested in that sound".

I've done that before for some other pop stuff that jazzes me that I had to really dig into, do unlimited phone calls, fly to the studios in 1973 (for example) to see/hear with my own eyes/ears how Bob Archibald came up with the sound of Cornelius Bros & Sister Rose stuff, specifically, "Treat Her Like A lady", "Too Late To Turn Back Now", "Don't Ever Be Lonely". All the way down to how the reverb is gainstaged, limited, and returns gated.

I'm sure he tired of speaking with me back then (after a while), but I DO know how those were done, with what, and how high quality the gear/approaches were, even though the final sound was somewhat quirky.

Same with a bunch of Sigma stuff from 1973.

Guess what?...... I've been commented to many times "why would I want that sound?".

I know track sheets, setups, rough mixes of locked 24trk machines at Criteria (well, the old Criteria) of Bee Gees stuff from their height. Including the massive submixes. Responses? "Yawn... that's not the sound I want"

I know the exact path for 1968 Jefferson Airplane "Triad". I use it too when I'm in the mood. As no surprise, I get comments..."not interested in that".

I have some of the information but no time to pursue the paths (locked 24trk machines and ? console) for a couple of Jamiroquai tracks that I like and can hear the brass submixing that's going on. No doubt, I'll encounter those "not interested in that" comments whenever I get the insight.

Alas, I am aware of but unable to participate in conversations where guys discuss "that sound" that tape recorders and consoles impart to loops and samples and rap vocals through a u87.

Sooooo....."that sound" is a different definition to all of us.

Do we all agree it's always brunettes over blondes?
Old 20th September 2017
  #141
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
Only an idiot would not want "those sounds."
Old 21st September 2017
  #142
Lives for gear
 
illacov's Avatar
 

Citing the cumulative effect is right on the money.

Where my interest piques revolves around what kid of intermodulation distortion was evident. Or the presence of other sympathetic harmonics because of the layering of distorted audio on distorted audio via these stages and processes.

There's more to it than just hitting the tracks themselves, it's the actual combination of the tracks thru various mean and practices that creates this phenomenon as well. I don't mean the "summing," per se in and of itself but rather the layering and recombining of certain sub mixes and sounds via bouncing and the use of sub mixes on the console to do so or the overdubbing of live sounds onto a new reel of tape while simultaneously capturing the previous sub mix off a slave reel or backup reel thru the console etc....

I think that's where it gets truly complex but fun at the same time. Its like the tracks need stimulus, then those tracks need to be submixed and portioned off, exposed to other various bits of stimuli, then overdubs that are separate from that process should be added on but obviously showcasing higher fidelity. The paths to accomplish this are available to us but we have to be willing to work for it. It's amazing how people think that hitting tape twice is alot when there were so many generations of tape and analog electronic generations so to speak (standard ops) that were involved in an analog record before it got onto vinyl, cassette or even CD.

Fun convo!

Thanks
-L.
Old 21st September 2017
  #143
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by illacov View Post
Citing the cumulative effect is right on the money.

Where my interest piques revolves around what kid of intermodulation distortion was evident. Or the presence of other sympathetic harmonics because of the layering of distorted audio on distorted audio via these stages and processes.

There's more to it than just hitting the tracks themselves, it's the actual combination of the tracks thru various mean and practices that creates this phenomenon as well. I don't mean the "summing," per se in and of itself but rather the layering and recombining of certain sub mixes and sounds via bouncing and the use of sub mixes on the console to do so or the overdubbing of live sounds onto a new reel of tape while simultaneously capturing the previous sub mix off a slave reel or backup reel thru the console etc....

I think that's where it gets truly complex but fun at the same time. Its like the tracks need stimulus, then those tracks need to be submixed and portioned off, exposed to other various bits of stimuli, then overdubs that are separate from that process should be added on but obviously showcasing higher fidelity. The paths to accomplish this are available to us but we have to be willing to work for it. It's amazing how people think that hitting tape twice is alot when there were so many generations of tape and analog electronic generations so to speak (standard ops) that were involved in an analog record before it got onto vinyl, cassette or even CD.

Fun convo!

Thanks
-L.
Yeah, well, you're one of the few guys I run across who is intrigued by all that. I'm convinced one sort of had to be there in those days to really understand it. No one in their right mind would WILLFULLY spend so much time submixing if there hadn't been such woefully inadequate ways to get the tracks needed to produce the sounds you had in your head.

I can just imagine me trying to teach 12-week classes on it with a console and a couple of tape machines... and one solitary song to track from ground up.

The class drop-out rate after week 9 would be mindnumbing

By the way, if I ever buy one of your Zulus, it would be to print it on every single individual element going in from moment one. And at physically wired interface reroutes for submix experiments too... with and without the console in the chain. Just to decide for myself what's what. Alas, too much gear, not enough...... you know.
Old 21st September 2017
  #144
Lives for gear
 
illacov's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoodle View Post
Yeah, well, you're one of the few guys I run across who is intrigued by all that. I'm convinced one sort of had to be there in those days to really understand it. No one in their right mind would WILLFULLY spend so much time submixing if there hadn't been such woefully inadequate ways to get the tracks needed to produce the sounds you had in your head.

I can just imagine me trying to teach 12-week classes on it with a console and a couple of tape machines... and one solitary song to track from ground up.

The class drop-out rate after week 9 would be mindnumbing

By the way, if I ever buy one of your Zulus, it would be to print it on every single individual element going in from moment one. And at physically wired interface reroutes for submix experiments too... with and without the console in the chain. Just to decide for myself what's what. Alas, too much gear, not enough...... you know.
I actually still employ the use of submixing on my own sessions at the mixing post production side of things.

creating a submix of certain elements, running them through various analog devices including my device, offers artifacts that can't be accomplished just from the tracking or even just printing the individual stems. Its like you have to handcuff yourself to get the results I'm after and its not like there's an out where it can be done via parallel processing, you literally have to go for it 100% wet and get that balance perfect. Screw it up and you have to go back to formula. But that's the fun of it for me.

Its really really really understated that just processing kick, snare and maybe the overheads or just the hi hat TOGETHER makes a very strong thumbprint on your drum mix alone. This could be utilizing any particular effect or processor too, compressor, tube equalizer, reverb or tape delay effect, its the grouping of the sounds be it via frequency content or due to the sharp transients and dynamic activity employed, it just triggers things differently than a large variety of sounds together. Add in saturation or distortion and the level of variety changes even that much further.

The same can be said if you process keys and guitars together or bass with percussion. Its like these forced methods have some true merit if you don't mind incurring some sort of interaction between the frequencies and content. Once you get past that, even if your goal is higher fidelity, there's still ways to massage that into a workable style that can fit many different types of music.

I think where the message gets blurry is the constant reinsertion of the idea that the ONLY way people wanted to work and what they aspired to, plus the type of medium they wanted was for the cleanest, most hifi top grade clinical sterile form of audio, free from artifacts or anomalies. Even when you deal with the people from the top of the food chain, its still inherently flawed to take an individual's perspective as gospel or indicative of the general consensus of professionals. Those opinions vary from one end of the spectrum to the other. Its often lost in translation that professional opinions are best assigned to the bearer of that opinion rather than to the profession itself. One person's clean is another person's vibe and so on.....

Regarding an actual machine that I see employed frequently and for very good and evident reasons is a trust A827. Not a vibe box but if its in good working order today and has a clean bill of health, it will fire up tmw with good alignment and behavior. Not all machines are known for such rock solid day to day functionality. They may sound sexier to some but they sure make you pay out more in maintenance and daily check ups to get that sexy from them.

I also think that without keeping the discussion framed around what tape formula you're using, its kind of missing legs to me. ATR has an MOL of +13 a far cry from the Ampex 456 +6 rating. Don't buy a high MOL tape and expect it to sound like Ampex 456 @ 15IPS, no matter what deck you get. I'm not saying it won't sound good, but just don't expect it to be the same as 456 or 499 for that matter.

As much as I loved my 38, I'd be hard pressed to grab one now. I got lucky with the one that got stolen and had 0 problems with it. Looking at whats available now, plus whats available in parts, I'd be keener to get a much more reliable and serviceable machine, which obviously would cost me alot more money than the $400 I plunked down on my 38 back in 2009 or the $50! I plunked down for my MINT CONDITION Fostex A20 in 2007. It came with 10 new reels of 1/4" tape and 2 Audio Technica condenser microphones. This was on freakin craigslist. Not a single thing wrong with anything in the whole lot.

I mean literally, just turn the damn thing on and it worked. That was both of those decks.

Thanks
-L.
Old 22nd September 2017
  #145
Lives for gear
 
oceantracks's Avatar
 

"I can just imagine me trying to teach 12-week classes on it with a console and a couple of tape machines... and one solitary song to track from ground up.

The class drop-out rate after week 9 would be mindnumbing "

Don't count on the drop out rate. You are envisioning this being much harder than it is..was....and you learn a lot everytime you do it, rather than having stuff like "TRACK 200 ....TRIANGLE" LOL


But yes you'd have to have someone experienced to teach it.
Old 22nd September 2017
  #146
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoodle View Post
I can just imagine me trying to teach 12-week classes on it with a console and a couple of tape machines... and one solitary song to track from ground up.

The class drop-out rate after week 9 would be mindnumbing
I guess you're no Fred Catero...
Old 23rd September 2017
  #147
Lives for gear
 
jjblair's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by burns46824 View Post
Tape is still relevant and, in some ways, sounds better than ever. Loving ATR's recent batches.
Do you have NOS batches of 456, 499, GP9 or 911 to compare against? I have a ton that I bought when Quantegy went under. My experience with ATR tape was the opposite. The reels seemed inconsistent. I couldn't believe how often I had to clean the heads of oxide shed, and I wasn't blown away by the sound. Unless they've changed drastically in the last 12 months, I'd be shocked if you listened side by side with the NOS Quantegy and picked ATR.

I'm glad that people are excited by it, but I will name 5 engineers who have all told me they don't miss tape: Bolas, Cherney, Hogarth, Schmidt and Massenberg. I'm with them. I find the other parts of the signal path are much more important to the sound I want than the recording medium. I'm making even better sounding records now than when I was doing all my basics to 2" 16 trk. and ODs to 2" 24 trk., IMHO.

I'll use it if the artist really insists, but I'll try to talk them out of it first.
Old 23rd September 2017
  #148
Lives for gear
 
oceantracks's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblair View Post
Do you have NOS batches of 456, 499, GP9 or 911 to compare against? I have a ton that I bought when Quantegy went under. My experience with ATR tape was the opposite. The reels seemed inconsistent. I couldn't believe how often I had to clean the heads of oxide shed, and I wasn't blown away by the sound. Unless they've changed drastically in the last 12 months, I'd be shocked if you listened side by side with the NOS Quantegy and picked ATR.

I'm glad that people are excited by it, but I will name 5 engineers who have all told me they don't miss tape: Bolas, Cherney, Hogarth, Schmidt and Massenberg. I'm with them. I find the other parts of the signal path are much more important to the sound I want than the recording medium. I'm making even better sounding records now than when I was doing all my basics to 2" 16 trk. and ODs to 2" 24 trk., IMHO.

I'll use it if the artist really insists, but I'll try to talk them out of it first.
Yeah I know. But to me, this just sounds HUGE...even if I'm not crazy about the song. And count him as one of the big engineers that still use it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5VHW1J5o0Q

Last edited by oceantracks; 23rd September 2017 at 04:03 AM..
Old 23rd September 2017
  #149
Lives for gear
 
jjblair's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceantracks View Post
Yeah I know. But to me, this just sounds HUGE...even if I'm not crazy about the song. And count him as one of the big engineers that still use it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5VHW1J5o0Q
Sounds huge? Well, that's debatable. But the tape isn't the reason for the sound you're hearing. He even addresses that. It's one of the few things that he and I agree on.
Old 23rd September 2017
  #150
Lives for gear
 
oceantracks's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblair View Post
Sounds huge? Well, that's debatable. But the tape isn't the reason for the sound you're hearing. He even addresses that. It's one of the few things that he and I agree on.
Yeah, sounds huge.

And no, he doesn't say that at all. He says he wouldn't use a tape machine "out of it's parameters"....

He uses analog mainly for future proofing his work.

"I feel it would be irresponsible to give my clients digital files as their permanent masters, knowing they would eventually disappear or become unusable, so I won't do it. Some of the bands I work with don't appreciate the difference, or take seriously the notion that music should outlive the people who make it, and I understand that."

As far as the sound, I grew up in analog studios...so thanks I'm familiar with what it can sound like, and why tape sims and "analog warmth" plug ins seem to be somewhere in many engineers mix templates today.
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