1" 8 track vs. 1/2" 8 track

[tiger vomitt]

how can i tell if the heads are ok?

[j.hall]

good question.....

you want to look for grooves worn into them, scratches, rust...thing like that

if they look evenly worn and symetrical to your eye, chances are that you will be ok

ask for a head report

if the seller knows whats up they will either have one, or be pretty forth coming with head life and wear......perhaps they will pay for a head report to be done

[moogplayer]

Some things to consider:

The pro 1" machines have better front-end electronics with much better sound potential than the Tascam and Fostex models.

A neglected or miscalibrated 1" deck may sound inferior to a properly calibrated 1/2" machine. Key point: maintainance is crucial

Costs: 1" 8-tracks are a labor of love...and harsh on your wallet at times. But most of them are bulletproof and last for years. Do a little research and seek out a tech in your area BEFORE buying.

If you go the 1" route, I'd look at the MCI JH110C, Ampex 440C (yes, there were 1" 8 tracks), Otari MX70 or even MX-7308. I've seen some of these machines recently for fairly cheap ($1K range). I'd shy away from Scully and 3M (love 'em, but parts are way too much)

[Al]

I feel the same way about Tascam, dbx!! you can keep it!!

[cassembler]

No, all you guys have it all wrong!

Tape width has nothing to do with anything, what you're after is the size of the machine. Bigger machine= better sound.

Not really.

[Al]

Whatever the size,tape is cool,i thought that's what tape op.com was all about ,folk who luv recording on tape machines??
I know there is a digital section on this site,but that's no mans land for me!.

I'm sure everyone that has a tape machine dreams of owning a Studer or something similar!.
My friend has one for sale,a 16 track on 2 inch a80!!.
Only trouble is,i aint got the cash or a big enough room to accomodate it!!

Oh well,it's o.k. to dream eh??

[A.David.MacKinnon]

If this is all about cost effectiveness and bringing in business I would advise you go with a 1/2" machine. If you are working at the indie level (as I'm sure many of us are) the people you will be recording will be paying more attention to cost then sound. Not to imply that you shouldn't be striving for quality sound.
You can get very, very good results with a 1/2" 8 track, tape is cheap and it's cheap and easy to maintain.
As a fellow studio owner once said "I'd be better off if I saved the money I spent on gear and just bought a neon sign that says Dave's Studio. I'd get more work with the sign then I do with the gear"

[soundguy]

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion and I dont mean to jump on Al's case, but the notion that "any size, tape is cool" is just such an utter load of horseshit and really not something to go spread in this circle. We are a bunch of smart guys, we should behave as such. I suffered for many years on a 1/2" 16 track and I can promise those who havent had the experience that this format is just a total waste of time now that DAW's are affordable. You would reallyu have to have rocks in your head to deal with an MSR-16 when you can track on a DAW with easily better results. Mixing tracks off that 1/2" 16 track was nothing more than an activity in fixing a problem caused by an inferior tape deck. I'll take the uncolored QUIET DAW over the thin, crosstalk laden consumer tape deck with the worst electronics devised by a japanese dude.

Beyond track width, a really important thing to consider is the electronics. The amplifier is EVERYTHING. People wet their pants over whatever boutique racked mic pre happens to be the flavor of the month, but then they'll go plug it into the cheapest amps in their recorder and console. The electronics of the deck will impart a significant color to whatever you are recording, so do not overlook that for an instant.

I would KILL to record a record on a 1/2" 440B 8 track, I cant even conceive of a 1" 440. My 1/4" 440 2 track is simply the illest sounding tape deck I have ever heard and its all because of the electronics. Its the good sound of the deck that makes putting up with the shortcomings of the transport, etc, worth dealing with. If the holy war was a tape recording, an ampex 440B would do it justice playing it back.

Of course, those things are pretty big when you get 'em up to 8 tracks, but that would be the most bombastic machine ever. Led Zeppelin 4 was tracked on a 3M M56 8 track and a few weeks after that, Deep Purple Machine Head was tracked on the same rig, so that should give you an idea of how insane those things can sound. The M56 was an all discrete machine. You want an all discrete tape machine if you can afford to find one. That kind of depth is likely to be limited to discrete amplifiers in the record and play electronics.

My old partner used to have a 5050 and it was cool, it was small and it sounded nice. Short of locating a giant beast and having to fix it, the otari is probably a REALLY safe bet to go, a lot safer than getting a 440 or a M56 or anything like that.

If you are debating wether or not you can afford tape, you shouldnt be getting a tape deck. Beyond tape, there is all kind of cost that you arent thinking about that definitley adds up, regular repair being the paradigm of expense.

Evan, all in all, if you dont have fluid money to spend and its a stretch to get a decent machine, do yourself a favor and put up with your daw until you can get a nice tape deck, you'll thank me in the end. If you get a cheap sounding deck, it will surely be cool until the novelty wears off and then when you want to take it seriously as a medium, you'll want a better deck. If you jjust wait till you can afford a quality deck, like a 5050 or something along those lines, you'll be impressed with it right out of the gate.

then you can call yourself a tapeop. cool.

dave

[JES]

Okay, so I've been following this thread and I'm just wondering, what do you lose on the 1/2" format of an Otari MX 5050 or something over a nice MCI 1" 8-track. I mean, there are issues about electronics and stuff, so I'm wondering how it all adds up for sound quality. I was once told the MX 5050 sounded a lot better than 1" machines, but I know just shit about tape decks, so I'll just put that out here. The MX5050 is nicely built -- I'll say that for it!

Best.
--JES

[tiger vomitt]

well dave that was one piehole shitter of a post!

thank you very much for the awesome info.

16 track 1/2" decks were never part of the story for me. i'd take a DAW almost anyday, even one of those little pedal sized digital 4 tracks. maybe not. that one would be a tough choice. hmm, id probably take the 16 track, but i wax all stupidful...

so that i understand, i think your suggestions for a deck are either an ampex 1/2" 440B 8 track or an otari mx 5050 1/2" 8 trk, correct?

your description of the 3M M56 makes me drool. why would hooking up that machine be bad? size? parts, or availability or sumpin? you used the 2 magic words, theyre very powerful - "led zeppelin" i can not resist those words.. was it a one inch or 1/2" deck?

[tiger vomitt]

yo evan throw down the cash for an otari mx 5050. it is half inch and sounds like a world of rock on drums and bass. 1 inch machines sound badd ass, butt they will be expensive, and tape will cost more. i just got a daw and use the mx5050 on the front end. they cost less than $1k, i do not think they can be beat in that price range. if you want to go nuts though i know someone selling a studer a80 1" 8 track for $1500, but it is in nashville and as big as a closet.

hello there kerry,

did you do the mighty rime album with "rio grande" on an mx5050? that song sounds so coooool, especially when that instrumental bridge-ish thing comes on.

[Al]

All the bull aside for now please!!!

If you cant make a hit record on a 1/2 inch machine soundguy,your not going to do it on a 2 inch one!!.

Tape op.com eh??......maybe that should be" Anal retention.com"

[j.hall]

relax man....."soundguy" and myself have never been known for or shy opinions

it's just the internet, no one is out to get you......

but to answer your question

you can make a hit record on whatever you want
these days, a hit record has little to do with sonic quality....

[bobbydj]

I disagree with this. Most 'hit records' - by which I'm talking chart music (that IS what's meant by 'hit', right?) - have a lot to do with 'sonic quality'. After all, the vast majority of the stuff I hear on the Chart Show is digitally recorded.

Yeah - I know. What's 'quality'? Chart music's sound may be superb in the sense of trad ideas of fidelity (no hiss, no superfluous surface noise or flutter etc), but frankly who cares? It's almost all soulless shite. I know it sounds reactionary, and I honestly try to catch myself before I make this sort of conclusion. Nevertheless.

[j.hall]

It's almost all soulless shite.

exactly my point!!

i guess that doesn't play into sonic quality very much
but it still makes me think the recording sound like shit......shit music, shit recording

you can polish a turd all you want, only thing you get is something a little smaller and still brown....