New "vintage" recording setup?

[rjm]

I was wondering how many of you fed up with computers has gone the route of say....an analog mixer and a Tascam DA-38/88/78 configuration? I had a DA-78 a couple of years ago, which sounded great, and now I'm thinking of going back to an 8-track setup using a DA-78 along with my 8 channel tube mixer.

I love Pro-Tools for it's sound and ease of use, but there's something appealing about stripping back to 8 tracks, and pushing rewind and forward again (or not...that's what I'm worried about!). To me, this sounds like the modern equivilant of "going back to analog", without truly going back to the pain of tape.

Thoughts or discussion about this?

[GooberNumber9]

There are lots of other options for digital storage with a more tape-like feel. I love my Alesis ADAT HD24 which is just a bit 24-track tape deck except it's not tape, it's a hard drive. Right now I run it with a Yamaha 01V96 digital mixer, which isn't so bad, but kinda sounds and feel a little ITB, just without the monitor or plug-ins. I'd love to get a nice analog mixer and a converter upgrade for it.

There's also Radar and some Tascam hard disk recorder offerings. Personally I wouldn't go back to digital tape because tape to me is A) a big pain and B) not reliable enough.

Todd Wilcox

[getreel]

I'm not a fan of Modular Digital Multitracks personally. I used a DA-88/38 setup back in 2001-2004 and there were times the machines became so glitchey that I was afraid I was going to lose entire songs or projects. Plus, they are getting older now so could likely have even more trouble. Hard drives are so cheap, that route doesn't seem to be that great of a choice. Also, many DAW interfaces now have better conversion, bit depth, and clock rates than the old tape based systems. The tapes were always a problem with ADATs and DAs and deteriorate over time. Why have you convinced yourself you don't like working with a computer? Maybe you should look into a stand alone set up like the hard disk HD24 Alesis makes now or, even better, a Radar system. I would have gone this way when I left analog except that I like the fact a DAW is more powerful and rich feature wise. Also, a DAW is more upgradeable it seems.

[A.David.MacKinnon]

I was wondering how many of you fed up with computers has gone the route of say....an analog mixer and a Tascam DA-38/88/78 configuration? I had a DA-78 a couple of years ago, which sounded great, and now I'm thinking of going back to an 8-track setup using a DA-78 along with my 8 channel tube mixer.

I love Pro-Tools for it's sound and ease of use, but there's something appealing about stripping back to 8 tracks, and pushing rewind and forward again (or not...that's what I'm worried about!). To me, this sounds like the modern equivilant of "going back to analog", without truly going back to the pain of tape.

Thoughts or discussion about this?

Tape based digital systems offer all the worst aspects of analog and digital recording.
It's digital but it's linear so you can't edit. It's tape but it's not TAPE. The bit depth and sample rates are low and the converters suck.

If you really want to strip down and simplify why don't you just track down an analog reel to reel? There are still lots of great sounding 1/2" machines out there.

[>Mojave_Gary<]

First, let me say that my entrance into the wonderful world of digital multi-track recording was in 2000 with my purchase of a Roland VS-1680. Storage, back-ups and OS updates were done via a scsi Iomega Zip drive. I had decided to make digital a part of my repetoire because of the obvious advantagious possibilities afforded me by the capabilities of digital editing.Therefore, I had no great expectations of learning any new tricks where the basics of tracking, mixing or mastering were concerned, and boy was I wrong.
That said, I had always been a staunch 'tape and analog only' holdout. I have since purchased a 2nd Roland unit, a VS-2000 CD and have never experienced any problems with either unit. I currently use both VS units as well as a Tascam 388 tape multi-tracker, a TEAC A3300SX mastering reel to reel, and a DA-20 DAT machine. I get the best of both worlds. I also utilize analog and digital mixing and processing mediums. For me, what ever sounds the best on the tracks I am recording is what I use. There is alot of expensive gear that works/sounds like sh!t and alot of cheap gear that works/sounds great. I don't care if the housing says API, Focusrite, Behringer or Mattel, if it makes my track sound good, It's the right gear to use. Sometimes I just 'feel' like tracking or bouncing to tape, other times, it's the only way to get the guitar, bass, snare, mellotron etc. sound that I have in my head. I refuse to limit myself to 'settling' for a sound because I have run myself out of options. Tracking to tape, bouncing to digital for editing/processing or vice versa is cool as long as you have equipment that works for you.

[JGriffin]

I was wondering how many of you fed up with computers has gone the route of say....an analog mixer and a Tascam DA-38/88/78 configuration? I had a DA-78 a couple of years ago, which sounded great, and now I'm thinking of going back to an 8-track setup using a DA-78 along with my 8 channel tube mixer.

I love Pro-Tools for it's sound and ease of use, but there's something appealing about stripping back to 8 tracks, and pushing rewind and forward again (or not...that's what I'm worried about!). To me, this sounds like the modern equivilant of "going back to analog", without truly going back to the pain of tape.

Thoughts or discussion about this?

Tape based digital systems offer all the worst aspects of analog and digital recording.
It's digital but it's linear so you can't edit. It's tape but it's not TAPE. The bit depth and sample rates are low and the converters suck.

If you really want to strip down and simplify why don't you just track down an analog reel to reel? There are still lots of great sounding 1/2" machines out there.

Agreed. Worst of both worlds.

[linus]

The other option is to just use a DAW as a tape recorder but mix outside of the box. Do whatever editing you want, use whatever plug-ins you want, or don't use any.

I tend to work that way. I use a Nuendo 3 DAW. The majority of my effects are outboard (compression, reverb, delay). I think it works well. I mix through an analog board that imparts it's color/quirks. That feels like the best of both worlds. The conveinience of a DAW but the colors my gear can impart.

Take a listen for yourself. My signature has the link.

You can limit yourself to 8 tracks if you want even if you really have an unlimited number available.


Now having said that I did recently record an old-timey roots singer songwriter on my Tascam 38 1/2" deck. Why??? Because I wanted to knock the dust off it and she was game. If I had to do it over I probably would have used the DAW just to avoid the tape hiss...

[@?,*???&?]

Those Tascam units sound awful. Mid rangey and firm. Don't know if it's the clock or the converters, but what I do know is that there are many other better sounding systems. This is not even a sound to grow nostalgic over. Bury 'em.

[joel hamilton]

Discipline is free.

[Liv Pooleside]

But big reels of tape smell so good!

I like the Yamaha AW4416. I'm not looking at a monitor (instead of listening to a pair of monitors), it's really well laid-out "ergonomically", and the cat loves the automix feature.

Pres are weak, the eq is too, but it goes clean and fast when you know it.

So yeah, I agree, digital tape is the worts of both worlds. Go analogue if you need to wait for rewinds.

[JGriffin]

Discipline is free.

Awesome. And true.

[emrr]

Tape based digital systems offer all the worst aspects of analog and digital recording.
It's digital but it's linear so you can't edit.

Just because most people couldn't be bothered to acquire black-belt skills with a BRC doesn't mean it couldn't be done. A BRC and a set of ADAT's in the hands of a skilled operator is actually much more flexible than an HD24 in terms of editing and punching. Identical to assembly editing video tape in 'the good old days'. Not that I want to go back, by any means, but the HD24 is a huge disappointment from an operational standpoint. I once edited down 16 hours of live 8 track ADAT masters into one seamless live performance in a matter of 3-4 hours. I couldn't have loaded the tapes into a DAW much faster, let alone done the editing.

Remember orchestrating multiple punch-ins with a tape machine at different song regions on the same pass? Lack of this in a digital system still drives me nuts. WHY MUST WE GIVE UP FEATURES!!


Sorry....

[GooberNumber9]

Just because most people couldn't be bothered to acquire black-belt skills with a BRC doesn't mean it couldn't be done. A BRC and a set of ADAT's in the hands of a skilled operator is actually much more flexible than an HD24 in terms of editing and punching.

Uh?!?! Are you not aware that you can run an HD24 off of a BRC? I picked up an old BRC from e-Bay and sometimes I drive around my HD24 with it. The big downside is that you can only run at 48 kHz (as far as I can tell). I'll bet if you applied your BRC black belt to running an HD24 your editing would be faster since you don't have to wait for transport.

Also, I'm pretty sure with PT|HD you can punch in disjoint regions on different tracks in a single take.

Todd Wilcox

[rwc]

But big reels of tape smell so good!

I like the Yamaha AW4416. I'm not looking at a monitor (instead of listening to a pair of monitors), it's really well laid-out "ergonomically", and the cat loves the automix feature.

Yeah. Instead you're looking at a microscopic LCD with 20000 small menus.

[O_ellinas]

That is what I do. I could not face working with a computer. So I have an analog mixer, hardware effects and I record on a Fostex D-108. I love it. It's an old 8 track hard disk recorder that uses IDE hard disks. It feels like a tape deck but without the hassle. Rock solid, good sounding and cheap these days. Plus you can dump files to your PC and back if you have an SCSI external drive or ADAT interface. And you can daisy chain them if you need more channels.