Tape, or not to tape... that is the question...

[buzzaudioguy]

Ok, I've been considering picking up this Tascam 16 track 1/2" recorder to incorporate into my studio. However, I've been battle this out in my head for so long that it's beginning to give me a headache. I'm running a G4 with DP3 which has given me little or no problems as is, but I feel like sometimes I'm missing the warmth and punch of analog. I've worked with 8 track 1/2" tape machines in the past and have fond memories of it, especially regarding drums, but I'm wondering at what point do you guys figure that you actually begin losing overally sound quality. Right now I've been tracking straight to the Mac at 24bit and for the most part it sounds really good. I'm affraid if I start tracking to tape, especially since it's 16 tracks on only 1/2" of tape, I might not sound as good. I doubt I'd have this concern if it was 1" or 2" tape, or even 8 tracks on 1/2", but 16? If you do the math it seems like it's almost the same tape space as a 4 track cassette! So, want do ya think? Should I stick to my straight digital rig for now and hold out for more tape space?

[cbcmusic]

What a very subjective topic

Tape records audio
Computer records audio

I record analog at home and with a computer at work. At home the rooms suck and the gear kinda lacks (compared to the studio at work)
At work the rooms were professionaly designed and they have some great mics and routing possibilities (compared to at home)

I've done most of my recording at work and it sounds great (for my amateur ass anyways), I also have learned that many flavors are a good thing (especially when it comes time to mix), I had rented some mic pres and compressors to use along side of the gear we have here for my last project and it is by far my best project (Of course, the band may be breaking up now over some petty shit ).

I do like recording at home, but the cost of 1" tape is a bit expensive so I tend to re-re-record over the tape several times and just mix down onto the 1/4", of course losing the master recordings. I do plan on getting some kind of a DAW at home so I can dump the 1" into it and if nothing else, have the master tracks to remix from.

This doesn't help you right? Well, if I had to chose one over the other, I would probably go the digital route. Although, preferably, I would work with both formats record to tape & load into computer.

[thearnicasync]

The spot you're in sounds familiar and a little Jacob's Ladder-esque. I longed for tape after being on computer for a couple of years. I'd started recording on 1/2 " at a friend's studio, and I had fond, fond memories, too. So I went and got a 1/4" four track (3440) just to see. And yeah, it sounded better in a lot of ways (warmer/immediately-well compressed), but it also sounded worse to me. For the first time, I could hear wow/flutter. The frequency response seemed worse. It didn't reproduce the sound the way I heard it. I could go on all day about how confused I was afterwards.

I don't know, I think it would make sense to go back to tape when I could afford to do exactly right, i.e. at least 1"-8 track or better, proper calibration tape, allignment practices, etc. Until then, I'm perfectly fine with 24-bit. People are going to like the rock or they aren't, and I'd feel silly trying to sell (or hiding behind) a format and not the music. Ultimately, If I can't make it happen with that kind of fidelity, then I can't make it happen, I guess. Not mention, the computer is very much a part of the way I work. Creatively, the expediency and interface itself are important considering the free (psychological) time I have to record...

That said, I know that creatively format does tailor the musicality of what you're recording. I don't want to hear Cherry Valence or the Mercury Birds recorded on an ADAT, but four-track would be fine. I don't know...I'm going nowhere with this...

Good luck with this one...

[DUC]

Where's the administrator! Just kidding.

I've been using a 388 for a while and I just got a brand new TASCAM 38 from a studio that had it packed for more than 10 years. I'm excited, but I don't have a mixer yet... and then I'm wanting to buy an ADAT machine so that I can have analog-like transports and physical tape. I don't like to do allot of edits and overdubs, so...

Anyway... either way you go, it'll be great. I've heard amazing albums recorded straight to digital (Solex).

So, think not what system you use, but what music you write... and sin no more.

[buzzaudioguy]

Well, working with both is what I'm attempting to do. In a perfect world I'd track to tape and then dump all the tracks to the computer to edit and mix. I guess what I'm getting at is... does a 16 track 1/2" sound worth a damn in the grand scheme of things? Too many tracks for such little tape? Stick with 24bit audio and hold out for bigger tape or fewer tracks? Any opinions?

[buzzaudioguy]

man, you guys are fast. I just responded, and before I could submit it two more of you guys put in your 2cents! Thanks! keep 'em comin'! This helps alot...

[the velour fog]

the new sigur ros i guess is completely computer...

this debate could go on and on...(it's been going on in my head for the past two weeks.) I recently just got out of a non-user friendly relationship with a Roland VS...and i'm still debating whether to just spruce up the computer and do that...or get a mini-disc multitracker (the tascam 564 looks very user firendly)...or I love the Tascam 388...or just going back to a damn tape 4-track.

I agree with the medium doesn't matter as much as the music...for me I'm looking for something that's very...that's right...user friendly. Since I learned on analog...i know analog, and have a tough time going straight to computer. I guess i'm very impatient with the learning curve...i just want to jump right in. which is the same reason i never learned to properly type...but now i can type 45 wpm with two fingers...

[evinrude7]

Tape colors the sound, digital does not. It's all up to what you want. The convenience of digital is great but is convenience what you are looking for?

Buzzaudioguy has a good point, 1/2 inch is not a lot of tape for 16 tracks, even if the tape is rolling super fast.

Evin

[markpar]

I've been tracking digital my entire recording life and had my first experience with analog tape last week. It totally blew my socks off how good the drums sounded. I'd love to track drums to tape and then dump to the digital recorder for overdubbing and mixing.

So, I guess it comes down to what you like the sound of the best. For me, I think an analog tape/digital multitrack hybrid will work the best, as I mainly do rock music. If I was doing jazz or classical only, I'd probably go all digital.

-mark

[swingdoc]

Answer depends on lots of things of course, money, space etc.
I think the Tascam MSR16 is a particularly nice sounding and very useable, durable machine. As soon as you go to 1" or 2" machines, upkeep, repairs maintenance etc come more into play.
If track size is an issue, and you're dumping to digital, ask yourself if you really need 16 tracks? If not, then an Otari 5050 MKIII 1/2" 8 track is a nice recorder.
I've had both machines, and I gotta say, I didnt hear a noticeable reduction in track quality with the MSR16. I also have a Tascam MS16 (1" 16 track), and I think the MSR16 hangs with it just fine. Certainly getting up to the big boys 2" machine will increase your recording resolution, but is it in your buget to go there?
IF not, I think the 1/2" 16 track is a great unit, gives more flexibility by having 16 tracks, and I dont think you are gonna suffer from poor quality tracking with that particular machine.

[buzzaudioguy]

That's the kind of answer I'm looking for. It is a MSR16. I wasn't looking for 16 tracks, but I don't have an 8 track staring me in the face like this one is. Sounds like it's worth my while to test it out, even if it means a massive studio re-wire to find out. I guess that's the main thing I wanted to avoid if everyone thought it was a crappy sounding unit. Sounds like it's not! thanks bunches...

[TapeOpHillary]

Tape colors the sound, digital does not.

digital doesn't "color" the sound, per se, but it does potentially change it just as much...hello...nyquist theory...

it brings up that whole debate about whether or not filtered out high frequencies (higher than those humans can "hear") actually *affect* the frequencies below 20k (for 44.1 at least)
and don't forget about bit-depth...lower bit depth is like watching an old super8 film where you don't see all the frames.

at least analog is continuous...

but then again, we *think* we see continuously when really it's all electrical impulses to our brains. i mean come on, really WE are seeing digitally...heh


hillary

[markpar]

it brings up that whole debate about whether or not filtered out high frequencies (higher than those humans can "hear") actually *affect* the frequencies below 20k (for 44.1 at least)

Yeah, remember that story that Rupert Neve tells about Geoff Emmerick noticing that one particular channel in a console sounded a bit off. After investigation, they determined that there was a 3 dB peak at 54kHz.

Here's a link to a chat with Mr. Neve (the whole things a fun read) with his account of that story. http://www.prosoundweb.com/chat_psw/tra ... rupert.php

-mark

[TapeOpHillary]

anyone know what the 'air' frequency is that mackie puts on some of their larger format mixers?

[dwelle]

hey buzz, i've been recording to an msr16 for a couple of years and just picked up an ms16 (1" 16 trk). the two don't compare. even at 30 ips, the 1" has a shit load more bottom.

it sounds to me that you want the "sound" that tape can impart and if thats the case, i'm not sure that the msr16 is what your after. it's kind of a thin sounding machine, not bad, just thin. if you want the benefits of the "analog sound" you'd probably be better off with a 1/2" 8 trk. look around for a tsr8 or an 80-8 (or any other one for that matter). it'll probably be cheaper and be more along the lines of the sound your after.