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

general questions, comments and ideas about recording, audio, music, etc.
User avatar
Al
moves faders with mind
Posts: 2690
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 7:26 am

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

Post by Al » Fri Jun 13, 2003 7:51 am

That's what i love about you American Dudes....your sense of humour and irony is impeccable!! :wink:

j.hall
gimme a little kick & snare
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 6:31 am
Contact:

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

Post by j.hall » Fri Jun 13, 2003 8:05 am

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

good one!!

that's the american way!!

hahahahahahaha

User avatar
soundguy
ghost haunting audio students
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 12:50 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

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

Post by soundguy » Fri Jun 13, 2003 11:02 am

Sorry Al, Im not so interested in making "hit records" and in this day and age you can record the biggest pile of rubbish so long as you have some kind of gimmick to peddle your wares with, be it a funny costume, bright colors, unconventional lineups, whatever. My comments pertain to making a recording that sounds good. All the records released that I know of that were done on a 1/2" 16 track sound just a shitty as the stuff Im looking at remixing right now. Shitty sound has never been the ultimate hindrance when it comes to selling records. You might want to investigate this thing called Punk Rock for an example...

dave

User avatar
bobbydj
on a wing and a prayer
Posts: 5357
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 2:58 am
Location: astride the vortex console
Contact:

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

Post by bobbydj » Fri Jun 13, 2003 12:13 pm

Punk rock is nowhere near that monolithic. There are SO many amazing sounding punk records, regardless of the criteria for sonic quality or fidelity you want to apply. Think of Costello's Pump it Up - it's just perfect from every angle. And what about No More Heroes by The Stranglers - or their version of Walk on By. Martin Rushent does a superb job on both tracks - and The Stranglers (for better or worse) had one of the more embellished and complicated sounds, what with Greenfields keys and several vocals, plus that mammoth bass sound and Cornwell's glorious lead shit. Rushent also brings out a shit-load of magic and excitement in The Buzzcocks and 999. Particularly the former - listen to 16 Again. Brilliant!

But then the Clash's first LP sounds toss, IMO. Also The Adverts are not great (though that may have been intentional to some extent, and anyway I love them so who gives a damn).

And ever hear Ian Dury's What a Waste? The more I think about it right now the less I can see how punk rock engineering and production practices were anything other than exemplary. For all sorts of reasons, but INCLUDING trad, 'objective' engineering criteria.

Or what? Is this just me? I know the stuff I mentioned usually sounds dated to hell these days, but if it catches you when you're not thinking it can really work all over again. And that has to be saying something. Perhaps everything.
Bobby D. Jones
Producer/Engineer
(Wives with Knives, Tyrone P. Spink, Potemkin Villagers et al)

User avatar
soundguy
ghost haunting audio students
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 12:50 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

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

Post by soundguy » Fri Jun 13, 2003 12:42 pm

oh man..... Im hardly talking about Elvis costello here... Im talking punk rock, recorded and mixed in 24 hours. Go pick a random SST record to get the picture. There are better things to debate than that, sorry.

If you want to make a hit record, go make one. there is some guy out there (who's name I totally cant rememebr) who is releasing 4 track cassette stuff and making huge bucks. If you want to make a good sounding record, use a format that will be less work to mix so it sounds good in the end. when it all comes down, you are judged by the sound that comes ot of the speaker, not the gear that you used. It makes the most sense to me to originate on a format that can be made to rock with the least amount of effort as opposed to originating on a format that requires some prety crafty handling to get it to sound good. Of course, logic isnt for everyone and if the magic of your sound lies in the narrow claustrophobia of 1/4" 24 track, by all means, use that format if it makes you happy. Its all about getting the sound you want. Not everyone wants a huge sounding record, so who are we to say?

dave

stapes
takin' a dinner break
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 3:47 pm
Location: austin, tx
Contact:

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

Post by stapes » Fri Jun 13, 2003 3:42 pm

I guess I'll add one more log to the fire. I think that one of the big differences that hasn't really been said is not so much to do with track width, which is valid, but with the quality that goes along with the fatter track width. Most tape machines that have a wider track width are going to have those better amplifiers in them, whereas the lower track width tape machines are going to be cutting more corners. I own an Otari MX5050 MKIII 1/2" tape machine that sits in my house and doesn't get any use since the couple of records that I tracked basics onto it for. Those records sound pretty good, especially for being mixed through the PT mixer. Up at the studio, we've got an old ampex 440B 1" 8 track. The difference between the two is unquestionable. I've never heard things sound so huge and fat in my life that come off of that Ampex machine; sometimes I'll just run signal through the thing to hit the transformers, and get that discrete class A sound. The sound of the Otari is good, and the transport is a hell of a lot easier to use on it, but the ampex is the real deal. It would take a lot of balls to do an entire record on the ampex, but I have not mustered up the band that is quite good enough to pull it off. You can spout off about how all that stuff back in the late sixties, early seventies blows away any modern recordings with a fraction of the track usage, but the fact remains that the players and the engineers of that time were seriously talented, and you don't come by that very often nowadays. I mostly opt to recording to a digital environment, and using that gargantuan sound of a tape machine as more of "post" thing. It gets the job done for me, and is a lot easier on the tape machine, which eats up more money in repairs than it has ever been worth in its life. I tracked my first session the other day to that tape machine, as well as to digital, and I'm sorting out my thoughts about it. I don't want this to turn into an analog vs digital debate because it's pretty pointless. The fact of the matter is, I just do whatever is easiest for the bands that I work with, which usually don't have that much money, but are more than capable of making a good sounding record with a little bit of help. In the end, it's all about the music, and the things that give us a big woody, is not usually the same as either the band, or their listeners.

Erik Wofford
Stapes Audio

User avatar
Al
moves faders with mind
Posts: 2690
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 7:26 am

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

Post by Al » Sat Jun 14, 2003 5:44 am

Nice one bobbydj!!!...i'm a big fan of that period of music,the Stranglers being one of my all time favourites!!...I love Martin Rushent's production on the "Black&White" album..Jet Black's drum sound is great!!.

And Hey Soundguy,whether your making a hit record or not,i still dont think it matters,i know all about the drawbacks of using 1/2 tape,but i dont care.
I'm a musician as well as sound engineer/producer,and i always go for "songs and performances" way over sound quality!!. But in saying that i dont have a problem with the sound of my b16 or my r8 at all.

And i value everyones opinion on this website,there is a lot of well informed people on this site,and for people that are just starting out in this world of recording this is treasure, and for everyone else i suppose".

It was nice to see a tape.op interview with David Bottrill,who i've worked with in the past,a really nice guy Dave and a very talented producer.

Please ignore any of my cheeky comments,i'm a Scotsman and it's just our way of having a laugh!!,there's never any nastyness intended,i can assure you!!.
Long live analouge... rock n' roll.

Stay cool

Al

User avatar
bobbydj
on a wing and a prayer
Posts: 5357
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 2:58 am
Location: astride the vortex console
Contact:

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

Post by bobbydj » Sat Jun 14, 2003 6:13 am

Off topic. And on the Rushent thing. B&W is the last good Stranglers LP really (Raven has moments), but RE JB's drumming I have to say he's the Charlie Watts of punk. E.g. he never puts the kick drum on off-beat chord changes, playing through them oblivious to the whole rest of the band. Bizarre. And not good, IMO. But yes, the drum sounds themselves are generally ok - if a little on the small side. JB kept time pretty well, but seemed like he'd listened to too much Neu. I mean, listen to the drumming on Grip and 5 Minutes. Wtf?!?! Rushent surely should've asked some pressing questions there. B&W goes off the scale weirdness wise too, in some parts. E.g Do You Wanna. Good grief. Although it's great when it does that transition thing into D&N&B.
Bobby D. Jones
Producer/Engineer
(Wives with Knives, Tyrone P. Spink, Potemkin Villagers et al)

User avatar
prince turbo lung
pushin' record
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 8:32 am
Location: nashville, tn.

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

Post by prince turbo lung » Sat Jun 14, 2003 7:42 am

evan,
yeah the whole mighty rime record was crammed on the 8 tracks of the otari mx 5050. i know some one here that has one for sale that has a mechanical issue, but the guy who actually designed the thing for otari is a tech here and still works on them, and needless to say he rules. i can check it out for you, i think the kid wants about $350 and it will cost probably anywhere from $100-$200 to get it fixed. we could figure out a safe way to ship it as well. some records that were done on mx5050s......unwound, uncle tupelo "no depression", most of the sebadoh stuff, dinosaur jr. "your living all over me", neutral milk hotel "aeroplane over the sea", all the apples in stereo stuff. i think barbaranian would sound epic on the mx5050.

kerry
if you are interested in the deck email me
themightyrime@hotmail.com
its on like donkey kong!!!!

corinpills
ass engineer
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 7:05 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA
Contact:

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

Post by corinpills » Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:18 am

Oi! Let's not use a tape width discussion as an excuse to bash Elvis Costello! I was having a pleasant little read there and all of a sudden my blood pressure is going up.

By the way, does anyone know any studios in the Boston area that have a 1" 8 track machine? I've been searching around, but to no avail.

JES
tinnitus
Posts: 1212
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 10:31 am
Location: Montreal, PQ
Contact:

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

Post by JES » Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:28 am

Erik Wofford wrote:I mostly opt to recording to a digital environment, and using that gargantuan sound of a tape machine as more of "post" thing.

Erik Wofford
Stapes Audio
Now here's a question: I *love* the sound of albums recorded on tape. There's no way I can afford and maintain a 1" 8-track. Plus I love working in digital too much (I know, that's naughty, but this is hobby so who cares?)But what about recording full mixes onto a 1/4" 2-track and then dumping them back into the computer for burning to CD? What would a really good quality machine cost? What machines should I look at? Would it be worth it for the sound of the bass and drums?

Thanks.

--JES

moogplayer
steve albini likes it
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 12:39 pm
Location: San Diego, CA
Contact:

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

Post by moogplayer » Sat Jun 14, 2003 5:43 pm

A lot of us folks record onto digital, mix to analog, and return to the digital arena for mastering. It does make a difference, but how much I don't know. Tape speed plays a big part of it. I like a lot of low end so I mix to 15ips analog (from ADATS). Makes things bigger. Now...I believe that nothing beats high quality analog. I did own a 3M M56 16 track 2" and I've never been able to get even close to the low end that thing put out. Since the 3M drained my bank acct on occasion, I have no regrets.

Look into mixing to 1/4" analog. Lots of used decks to choose from. Revox & Otari machines come to mind. Good luck

black ark
takin' a dinner break
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 7:27 am
Location: "the mistake on the lake."

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

Post by black ark » Sun Jun 15, 2003 1:05 pm

Shitty sound has never been the ultimate hindrance when it comes to selling records. You might want to investigate this thing called Punk Rock for an example...
nor has shitty performance...

in some cases "punk" means doing it yourself/for cheap/fast/inexpertly

but always with love. :wink:

i'll take "damaged" over elvis costello anyday.

gut level.

and for the record, frank sinatra is a frozen weenie. NOT a Hebrew National even. HE had proper engineers...

anybody got the Angry Samoans "unboxed set"? a little story in there about "metal" mike saunders failing to mention to the rest of the band that they did in fact have the $$$ for a 16 track studio. why? he was "too enamored with the concept of 8-track to let anyone else know."

did this help or hurt their last album? maybe it didn't matter...

get the best you can.

me? i have a fostex e-16 1/2" and there is an incredible amount of crosstalk on this machine. it has the same track width as my 4-track but i don't have to bounce a damn thing.... not a "pro" machine.

...but i'm not a "pro" and i'm below the level of this machine. i have a few years ahead of me to find out if i'm better than this machine or not. for now it's plenty. how much "machine" do you need?

-paul m
"the future's gonna be...
maintenance free."

User avatar
Al
moves faders with mind
Posts: 2690
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 7:26 am

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

Post by Al » Sun Jun 15, 2003 5:38 pm

What about crosstalk with your mixing desk?..that causes as much trouble as the machine!.
I record pre straight to tape all the time, desk only for playback. It's never that bad with the b16!!. Unless your being most severe with the levels of course!! :twisted:

User avatar
foley
pushin' record
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 7:58 am
Location: Urbana, IL

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

Post by foley » Sun Jun 15, 2003 8:24 pm

Here's an example of how a 1/2" tape machine can run up in price.

Two years ago I spotted a 5050 on ebay for around $500. By the end of bidding, it was $630. Throw in $150 for shipping. You now have an $800 machine (that I have never seen) being shipped to me from Florida.

Machine arrives two weeks later in a broken cardboard box (not kidding) with styrofoam padding. I don't know shit about these machines, but I have this huge, good feeling about this machine from the start so I am optimistic. Machine powers up.

For fun, I put a roll of 1/2" on her and the pinch roller just wraps the damn tape around itself. Yuck.

Order pinch roller from Japan - arrives in 4 days for something like $80.

Find a tech - have him check and align the machine, fix pinch roller, etc. Turns out the heads are in good shape, all tracks are working, and the mean is the shit. $120 for this information (and one easily replaced pinch roller).

We are now at around $1000.

The Otari MX5050 is, of course, 3 pin hot SO ... I decide to make custom quad cables for her - to and from the patch bay with extra for mics, etc. $300 for connectors and hundreds of feet of cable (a deal) - hours of annoying-ass soldering.

Oh - the board. Gotta have a mixing board for a tape machine! Might as well spend a little extra to get out of the mackie sound. Make it $500 for a used Soundcraft M8 (I know, I know ...)

So then I record a couple of bands - they buy me some tape. So now I have tape. Yay! But ... I need more tape because I keep running out. Make it $200 for tape for 12 months of personal recording (I'm a miser).

Oh ... the tape. I decide to switch from 456 to GP9. Ok - tapeop.com says I need MRL tape. Research. Research. Make that $100 (maybe more, I can't remember) for the "correct" MRL tape. Why? So I can burn hotter.

Now a year has gone by and the play button no longer makes the take up reel take up (she needs a little spin). I put up with this for a couple of months before breaking down and taking everything to the tech - GP9 alignment tape, machine, etc. DO IT! I demand. He (as always) fixes everything and the machine runs great. ($200 bill - another deal)

Did you know a 5050 can record down to 14K? WTF! That's insane! This machine is more fun, and has more potential than you can ever imagine.

And the bill so far for this neat toy? Somewhere around $2300. However - it IS my baby, and I love her. Will my masterpiece be released by Virgin? Doubtful. But it is known that I have the hook up for 8 track analog, and I do get calls.

Tape machines are not cheap, but once you get them in the sweet spot, they rule. However, for my 5050 I have currently spent way more than the $500 I originally thought I would spend.

Careful, careful....

mf

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests