Advice on 1" 8 Track Machines

[Mystic Steamship Co.]

I've decided this is the format for me at this point in my life, professional sound quality without the 2" tape costs. I don't record many tracks for my own stuff, and for more complicated songs I don't mind committing to tape at all. I've been doing some research and it doesn't seem like there is much in the way of 1" 8 tracks out there. Some Scully's, a Sony, and Ampex or two, and an Otari that I can find. Do any of you have personal experience with any particular 1" 8 track machine? There is a Scully for sale in Nashville but it doesn't look to be in the best of shape and considering how old the machine is I held out. I talked to Michael at ATR while I was at AES for a bit and he recommended the Scully 280B, and told me to stay away from the 280 and the Ampex. If anyone has any input that would be great.

[Mix413]

The MCI would be a good choice. A bit more "modern" than the Scullys and Ampexes, relatively easy to service. Readily available parts.

[@?,*???&?]

The Otari is rock solid.

Easily the most modern and easily usable of the bunch. I have a 16-track MX-70 and that same model is available as an 8-track.

Highly recommended.

[calaverasgrandes]

I have seen way more 1/2" 8 tracks. not the same track pitch as 1" of course, but I would be worrying more about future media availability than cost. A lot of hip cats swear by mixing to 1/2" 2 track. So I think for the forseeable future it will be around. 1" is kind of an oddball format. I dont think I have ever even actually seen it! That, and like old cars, parts are harder to come by the rarer the model right? (and to stretch that analogy maybe a "parts car" would be on order?)
But then I have heard great things about 1" 8 track audio wise.
There is a lot to be said for creative limitations of 8 tracks being a good thing.

[DrummerMan]

1" is kind of an oddball format.

I'd have to agree with this, and maybe suggest taking this fact into consideration, though definitely not your final consideration.

I sold my 1"/16 track about a year and a half ago, before moving out west from NYC. It was never easy to find the tape I needed. The one big local supplier, NRS, would often be out of 1" tape of any kind. That would seem to be the first format to disappear whenever there was another tape manufacturer scare. Other local places, like that hipster craphole computer store in williamsburg, would charge almost twice as much, and they wouldn't even have 456 (which is what my machine was biased for), and only 1 or 2 reels in stock.

I haven't had to buy anything but 1/4" for the last couple of years so I don't know if any of that's changed with the current state of tape, but I think it's worth investigating.

1"/8 track is a wonderful format, though. I've played on a couple albums on that type of machine and it's kind of the best of both worlds, in that you get the simplicity of 8 tracks combined with a hi quality format.

Good luck.

[getreel]

1" 8 track was the original and most widespread format for 8 track until the Japanese "pro-sumer" 1/2" and even 1/4"(Fostex) 8 tracks came along in the late 70s and 80s. 1" 8 track is not an oddball format. It's harder to find the tape because of tape's general decline, not becuase it's an oddball. 1" 8 track machines were produced by Ampex, Scully, MCI, 3M, and Studer, I believe. 1/2" 8 track is an inferior format and would be the less common of the 8 track formats except that so many "pro-sumer" 1/2" machines were mass produced for the low end and home studio crowd in the 80s and early 90s.

[getreel]

The MCI would be a good choice. A bit more "modern" than the Scullys and Ampexes, relatively easy to service. Readily available parts.

That depends on the age and model of MCI you are talking about though. Early MCI 8 tracks are no more modern, easier to work on, or easier to find parts for than an old Ampex would be. Early MCIs have issues like AC reel motors and other bits just like their counterparts. Later model MCIs with the JH114 transport(late JH16s, JH24; both of which came in 8 track 1" models) will be more modern than an Ampex MM1000/mm1100/MM1200 or Scully, but maybe not as modern an an Ampex 124(not sure they made this with less than 24). It's all relative and professional analog tape machine history is full of such details. Best to know the details on several makes/models before purchasing. Also best to know how to maintain, align and work on them before sinking money into one.

[DrummerMan]

1" 8 track was the original and most widespread format for 8 track until the Japanese "pro-sumer" 1/2" and even 1/4"(Fostex) 8 tracks came along in the late 70s and 80s. 1" 8 track is not an oddball format. It's harder to find the tape because of tape's general decline, not becuase it's an oddball.

Sorry, I meant to finish that thought...

Every time I went to NRS and they didn't have 1" tape, I'd ask, "is tape out across the board?", to which their reply was, "no. we've got plenty of 2", 1/2" and 1/4". Even Guitar Center on 14th st. usually had 2" and 1/4", but they didn't even stock 1".

I know there are alot of 1" machines out there. I can think of a bunch operating in Brooklyn right now. That was just the experience I was having over and over again.

[Mystic Steamship Co.]

With ATR and RMGI i don't think finding tape is going to be that big of an issue. I've had a 1/2" 8 track and I liked it but I knew it wasn't going to stay with me forever so I got rid of it.

[themagicmanmdt]

i've looked - 1" tape is scarce, and in my eyes, will be the first size to 'go'.

so i went for a 1/2" 4 track!

half the tracks - same mojo!

[calaverasgrandes]

i've looked - 1" tape is scarce, and in my eyes, will be the first size to 'go'.

so i went for a 1/2" 4 track!

half the tracks - same mojo!

didnt the beatles use 1/2" 4 tracks to do Sgt peppers?
God I cant believe I just invoked the beatles. Not that they arent good if you like that kind of thing. I just am really tired of how their usage of some vintage recording gear is bandied about as if they had any choice in the matter. But thats just me.
but yeah, 1/2" 4track sounds cool. Get two and start bouncing tracks.

[the brill bedroom]

Well, I quite like that sort of thing, so no worries.

Here's something I've always wondered about and I put this out there just to see what you all think. I LOVE 1" 8 track, think it's a perfect format, but those machines are super hard to find compared to other analog configurations. I generally think of 1" 8 as perfect for bass and drum tracks- that extra tape width at 15 IPS is the ideal rhythm section sound. Would one get comparable results with a 1" 16 track (much easier to find) and just double the tracks for your drums and bass? I'm not even completely sure how one would do it, but use two tracks for the kick, snare and OH and also for the bass track. then you'd still have 6- 8 thinner tracks available for guitars or other things that don't necessarily benefit quite as much from the tape width.

Or, by their very nature, are most 1" 16 tracks pro- sumer and a bit less serious?

But yeah, check out that DVD of the making of Plastic Ono Band and you'll be gagging for a 1" 8 track (and Ringo on drums)

[calaverasgrandes]

the track size on 16 track 1" isnt just half the size of 8 track 1". You also have to take into account the unrecorded buffer area inbetween tracks. If you doubled the tracks like you are saying you would still be using less area on tape due to these buffer areas. Interesting idea though.
I know that when mixing live sound we often used to run all the instruments to buss 1/2 and the vocals to buss 1/2 and 3/4. This allows you to get the vocals up over the band without making the pre too gainy sounding. It also make sit easier to get a good board tape for later edification!
So in a way it kind of gives you some more headroom.

[fazeka]

didnt the beatles use 1/2" 4 tracks to do Sgt peppers?

No, the Beatles tracked on EMI's Studer J37 from '65 to '68 and that machine was a 1-inch 4-track. Before that they used a Telefunken in the same track density, from late '63 to '65. I agree that track density it's overkill for most. The pro standard for track density back then at least in the U.S. would have been 1/2" 4-track and later 1" 8-track and even later 2" 16-track.

God I cant believe I just invoked the beatles. Not that they arent good if you like that kind of thing. I just am really tired of how their usage of some vintage recording gear is bandied about as if they had any choice in the matter. But thats just me.

Whoever recorded at EMI back then (Hollies, Zombies, Floyd, etc.) used the same gear as well, so yeah it's not just the gear. But it's interesting/cool that the Beatles used it. I do believe that EMI was the bee's knees in regards to the quality of their engineers and hence their equipment.

[fazeka]

1" tape is "scarce" because of the tape machine options that you have.

All the pro machines (i.e., 8-tracks) are not really plentiful because their heydey was only for a few years (ca. '67/'68 through early '70s). No, I am not considering the relatively few custom Ampex 8-tracks made before then.

So then the only 1" machines were the 16-track prosumers. I don't think these were hugely popular, either, for somewhat obvious reasons.

I have a 3M M56 8-track that I really like. When I got the machine, I made sure to buy a bunch of 1-inch 3M and RMGI tape stock that will probably outlive my usage.