Mastering from a 1" 8-track

[Seanyworny]

Hey,

I've just invested in a 1" 8-track but i'm in the dark as to the best way to master from it. I'm contemplating buying my own mastering deck but my before I do, i'd like to know, regardless of price, should I be looking to get a 1/2" or a 1/4" machine?

Is there really any difference? Should I be looking to keep the Inch per track the same e.g. by buying a 1/4 or could I improve my original recording in some way by investing in a 1/2 inch machine?

Any help (audio examples) would be kindly appreciated- at this moment, resolving this quandary is my sole priority and it's bugging me!

Cheers fellas,
Sean

[joel hamilton]

I am not sure what you are asking here.
especially with the audio samples. Listen to anything recorded before 1995... chances are it was mixed to 2 track analog, or DAT.
"best" is a very difficult thing to qualify under any circumstance, but in a subjective, artistic situation it is almost impossible without a judgement being made. This judgement has to be made by you.

The best mix capture format?
The best way to get results like James Brown or James Hetfield?
Like dillinger escape plan or Lamb? Like Public enemy or Gary Wright?
Like botch or ultramagnetic MC's? Like Matisyahu or Meshuggah?


Ya know what I mean?

[Justin Foley]

I think you're talking about a mixdown deck. You will track onto the 1" 8-track, then playback and mix onto this machine you're considering, right?

If so, a 1/2" machine can offer higher fidelity than a 1/4" machine, although there are many very fine sounding recordings that have been mixed to 1/4". 1/2" tape (including alignment tape) will be more expensive. Any mastering house (the people you will probably be sending your mixdown to) that can handle analog should be able to handle either format. If you'll be using your deck to play other people's tapes, I'd guess that 1/4" has been more popular so you're more likely to be able to play what someone else gives you if it's 1/4" (again - I'm guessing here).

I have an MCI JH-110C mixdown deck with rollers and headstock for both formats - there are many other machines that will allow you to get both setups. Of course, this will require two sets of alignment tapes, splicing blocks, splicing tapes.

= Justin

[Seanyworny]

I do Joel, let me try and explain,

I've just got hold of an 1" 8-track and i'm considering the best ways to master. To give you some context as to the sound we're hoping to achieve, rather than audiophile 2" 8-track 30ips crystal quality, think more early Columbia Dylan/ Nick drake recordings.

As I understand it now, my choices are as follows:
(a) Master to a separate mastering deck- either 1/4"/ 1/2" running at either 30/15ips
(b) If i've two spare tracks on my multitracker, master to those
(c) Master via a mixer to a 2-channel digital converter as ultimately the songs will be going to CD Anyway anyway
(Then it's whether PCM/DSD?)

If you've any advice on the matter mate i'd love to hear it,
Cheers, Sean

[Seanyworny]

Justin- thanks for your reply and yes, correct, that's what I was hoping to do. Problem now is that some folks have suggested elsewhere now that if i'm tracking to tape, why bother going to another machine to master if ultimately it's gonna end up on CD anyway? They proposed to why not just mix down to a 2-channel digital converter via either PCM/DSD.

Please help,
Sean

[Justin Foley]

Part of the confusion (other than the fact that you've got two threads going in two different forums) is terminology. There are three distinct phases of recording - tracking, mixdown and mastering. You're using the word 'mastering' when you're in fact talking about mixdown. Once you mix the 8 track signal down to two channels, you will then take that mixdown and (usually) give it to someone else to master.

The right solution for you depends on your specific situation, of course. You could bounce six tracks to two spare tracks on your tracking master. Replaying this tape, however, would require someone having a 1 inch 8 track machine. If anything ever happened to that tape, of course, you'd be screwed.

Why mix to tape when this will end up on CD? There are a bunch of good reasons why I would. Tape is a much more permanent format than any of the other formats you're mentioning. There's a chance (and it's already happening) that the music may be available in a format with a higher resolution than 16bit CD - uncompressed WAV, Apple Lossless, whatever people will be listening to in 5 years, vinyl - and having a high fidelity analog master to be able to reproduce for other formats will be able to take advantage of those better formats. Finally, if you're going to move to a lower fidelity format, it's best to save that conversion until as close to the end as possible, so that whatever's doing the formatting has as much information as possible. (I know less about this last part and would be happy to hear arguments to the contrary but don't think that changes the overall fact that mixing to tape would be best.)

= Justin

[Seanyworny]

Hey Justin,

Aye, mixdown is what i'm talking about- thanks for the clarification. I've ruled out mixing down to two tracks on the multi-tracker for the reason you and others have pointed out. I've recently aquired a TEAC 80-8 8-track that has been modded to use 1" tape instead of 1/2 though some say that this machine is not good enough already as as starting point for the sound i'm hoping to achieve (the hissy 'boots of spanish leather' on Times are a changing).

Your advice has been some of the most informative I've received, thanks kindly mate.

[thereminman]

Hello ! I have a situation similar to yours, I have an 80-8 (still doing the 1/2" tape) and I mix it to a stand-alone cdr deck. (this mixdown I can send to be mastered or whatever).

My recent problem is that stand-alone CD-burning decks are becoming less popular and there are fewer choices in the new market.

I like my results though. Not sure if they'd stand up to some of the more 'pro' folks here with their more pro gear....but I'm pretty happy with the way it all works.