Analog Studio

I've got a line on some really good analog recording equipment including a 16 track R2R and several DAT Decks. Essentially I could set up a complete analog studio for about 1/4th of what it would cost to purchase each component separately. I've been planning on setting up a studio with both analog and digital capabilities. I think I'm going to take a shot at this gear. Do any of you guys have experience in recording with analog gear and then doing a final mix down from 16 tracks to digital?

What is the 16 track recorder?

Tascam MSR-16

I've also been on the lookout for a Tascam 388 1/4" unit.

You better get a line on an a MRL alignment tape while your at it becuase you are going to need it. See if there is someone in your area that can go over your R2R and give it a good going over.

I can not stress the importance of an MRL alignment tape, it is one of the most important tech tools you can have when working with Reel to Reel multitracks. Yes, they are expensive but it is really the only to make sure that your machine is properly set up to get the most out of it.

http://home.comcast.net/~mrltapes/#Catalog_Pages
http://www.jrfmagnetics.com/mrltapes.html

Mixing to a DAT is the same as mixing to 2 track tape. Just make sure your levels are properly set. And read the manual or if there isn't one, download one.

If you are up for the maintanince and the cost of reel to reel tape good luck to you.

You better get a line on an a MRL alignment tape while your at it becuase you are going to need it. See if there is someone in your area that can go over your R2R and give it a good going over.

I can not stress the importance of an MRL alignment tape, it is one of the most important tech tools you can have when working with Reel to Reel multitracks. Yes, they are expensive but it is really the only to make sure that your machine is properly set up to get the most out of it.

http://home.comcast.net/~mrltapes/#Catalog_Pages
http://www.jrfmagnetics.com/mrltapes.html

Mixing to a DAT is the same as mixing to 2 track tape. Just make sure your levels are properly set. And read the manual or if there isn't one, download one.

If you are up for the maintanince and the cost of reel to reel tape good luck to you.

Wow. Great info. Clearly I am going to have a TON to learn. What fun!

Thanks for sharing.

I disagree that mixing to DAT is like mixing to tape...DAT is digital, and has very very early ADDA conversion. I would double check the head life on the analog machine as well, as the heads (and proper alignment) are some very critical aspects of the process.

Calibrating your board to your tape machine is essential. Making sure that what your board puts out as +4 (or -10, or whatever) and what your recorder wants to see are as closely matched as possible makes for a better signal. Also, what kind of tape - 1", 2"? Got a good supplier? (Nashville has a few good ones left)

What kind of board you gonna use?

Wow. Great info. Clearly I am going to have a TON to learn. What fun!

Thanks for sharing.

There is a reason why a lot of studios totally abandoned analog tape machines. They are very costly to run and you have to deal with the upkeep. Add in the cost of tape and storage it can get even more expensive.

You may be able to have the machine serviced and have it aligned for a particular tape formulation and be good for a while.

If you don’t mind me asking, why do you want a 16 track analog machine? And how much is the person asking for it?
The reason I ask is you may end up paying even more money in the long run.

The board is going to be a Tascam M-2516 16 Channel Mixer. The MSR-16 is a 1/2" Tape

Why do I want to burden myself with a 16 Channel R2R?

Because I can.

I work in the "High Tech" industry and like to "unplug" for my hobbies. I just sort of like the idea of setting up an analog studio. I find a certain "romance" in the spinning reels. Sort of like travel by train. I am a serious amateur photographer and it took me a VERY long time to give up chemicals and the dark room. If I owned a boat, it would be a sailboat. I like to touch things and see the math and other concepts in my mind being represented in a physical manner rather than hidden and digesting through the electronic bowels of a computer.

This will be a labor of love. I'll take my time tinkering and learning. The list of gear is long and the price really is right. I know I'll be spending $ on tape and other "hidden" expenses. That is part of the fun for me. "Investment Payback" isn't a term that applies here.

I sincerely appreciate the words of caution. And I haven't made the leap yet, so making an informed decision is always good. I suspect this will be a little like my first guitar build. It certainly would have been easier and arguably less expensive to buy a guitar. I know it would have been less risky - I could easily have wound up with a pile of parts. And it took me a very long time to get the guts to proceed. But I loved doing it. The members of this Forum were an amazing resource in that effort.

Start pricing 456 1/2" tape too. The machine is designed around 456, although Scotch 226 should work. Keep in mind it's a narrow track machine, so saturation like 2" isn't really possible.

The Tascam is a 1/2" 16-track. They are pretty good machines, but not the same punch and signal-to-noise ratio as an old 2" 16-track. They often used dbx noise reduction to compensate for the skinnier tracks. Keep that in mind. Also, find out about the availability of 1/2" recording tape, it's still around, but getting harder to find (and more expensive).

Stay away from the DAT format, nothing but heartache there. They are early digital tapes, and are very unreliable, not to mention that they don't sound all that good. If you're going analog for the sound, mix to analog 2-track, or transfer your 16-track material into Pro Tools for editing and mixing. I know many people who archived their mixes on DAT back in the '90s and cannot play the tapes now. Full of errors. Bad news.

DAT was a miserable failure, that's for sure.

DAT was a miserable failure, that's for sure.

And that was on a good day...

For mixdown decks, the Korg DSD units are getting RAVE reviews by the top end mastering guys I know, and they are cheaper than a good stereo pair of convertors....

This 1500 works for me.:lol:

Got the same machine (1520, really)... very nice units.

Maybe its a Detroit thing but I share the idea thats its not always about whats easy or hi tech there is something about enjoying the process, the anticipation and the jubilation of getting it right. Plus IMO digital is vastly overrated. Music, as we humans enjoy it, is and always will be analog and the less we try to change that fact the better the music will sound. In my Hi End audio days I found that analog recordings that were digitized as the final step sounded better that full digital recordings. Enjoy your toys. Sorry for the rant.

Look at this place....

http://welcometo1979.com/

I hear where you're coming from and I'm sure you'll have a lot of fun. You shouldn't have to pay much money for the gear. Here in Toronto people can't give the stuff away.

Also remember that tape is increasingly hard to come by. It may even disappear.

Maybe its a Detroit thing but I share the idea thats its not always about whats easy or hi tech there is something about enjoying the process, the anticipation and the jubilation of getting it right. Plus IMO digital is vastly overrated. Music, as we humans enjoy it, is and always will be analog and the less we try to change that fact the better the music will sound. In my Hi End audio days I found that analog recordings that were digitized as the final step sounded better that full digital recordings. Enjoy your toys. Sorry for the rant.

I agree to a point. There is a lot of work to get a good analog recording. You need decent mics, decent mic pres and getting to know your equipment inside and out. In the end you should have recording that will sound great.

I agree to a point. There is a lot of work to get a good analog recording. You need decent mics, decent mic pres and getting to know your equipment inside and out. In the end you should have recording that will sound great.

IMO that stuff is more critical with digital than analog, as with digital you take out the signature sonics of the tape and its associated circuitry. This argument has gone on since the DASH days and will likely never stop as long as there are people living who actually worked with consoles, tape machines, and hardware (raising hand)...

In the end, it all should be about the song anyway, without all this other stuff getting in the way :idea:

There are still songs where the hiss almost knocks me out of my chair. But it doesn't detract from my love for the music. Certain songs from the Moody Blues or Queen are good examples of this.

It is, however a flaw. I am 100% certain that if they could have recorded "Nights in White Satin" without the hiss, they would have in a heartbeat.

Look at this place....

http://welcometo1979.com/

Chris Mara's place, a great studio and he's the guv when it comes to MCI gear. I have an MCI 1" 8 track and he has been really helpful. He also just produced a great sounding record with Brendan Benson.

In my opinion, a 1/2" 16 tracks isn't worth the trouble. It requires a lot of maintenance and expense to get tape rolling, usually. You aren't going to get much tape goodness out of a machine with same track width as a 4 track cassette. An Otari MX5050 8 tracks is a GREAT tape machine to start on. Tascam and Otari 1" 16 tracks are easy to find and quite good. 1/2" 16 is below pro-sumer level. Having been through it, my prediction would be that you would spend a lot few dough and ultimately be unsatisfied and want something better.

Tape hiss can be annoying but it, like single coil hum, is in the nature of the beast. It seems to be the frictional relationship between the tape (sand paper) and the head it self. In the real world you cant "filter" out hiss without also effecting everything else at the same frequency, like cymbal splash or brushwork. You have to approach it like playing a tele or photographing Cindy Crawford, do it so well that folks are so focused on the goodness they no longer care about the other stuff.

Chris Mara's place, a great studio and he's the guv when it comes to MCI gear. I have an MCI 1" 8 track and he has been really helpful. He also just produced a great sounding record with Brendan Benson.

In my opinion, a 1/2" 16 tracks isn't worth the trouble. It requires a lot of maintenance and expense to get tape rolling, usually. You aren't going to get much tape goodness out of a machine with same track width as a 4 track cassette. An Otari MX5050 8 tracks is a GREAT tape machine to start on. Tascam and Otari 1" 16 tracks are easy to find and quite good. 1/2" 16 is below pro-sumer level. Having been through it, my prediction would be that you would spend a lot few dough and ultimately be unsatisfied and want something better.

Great advice. Much appreciated. Now we'll see if I actually follow it!

The Otari looks like a great machine.

Hey Brother rob, Homerecording.com has an analog only forum page. You might find some useful info.

Hey Brother rob, Homerecording.com has an analog only forum page. You might find some useful info.

Looks like a great resource. Thanks for sharing.

I am an analog guy all the way. will be until I die. A few years back when I was looking at gear I got a little converter to move my records to digital so I could play in the car. After deciding to do a little recoding I stopped looking at analog gear. I could have afforded to buy a nice 2" machine and top end console. Not that I'm rich, the prices had dropped that much. Then I priced tape.....when I found it. I decided between the maintenance (no, I'm not new to that and used to do it), warm up time and tape cost I'd stay with digital. After doing a little recording I found out it's not the format I don't like, it's all the crappy mixes out there. My digital stuff sounds just like my analog stuff. It's ears and idears, not gearz. Hey, I like that.The thing is I mix a certain way, always have. I mix until I like it so it really doesn't matter how it got there, only what's coming out my monitors.

I haven't read every post......on my second cup of mud...

I grew up with analogue and started with the TEAC A3440S (simulsync) in 1979.
Then added the Fostex Model 80 (8)track 1/4 inch in 1987.
Both units were used extensively in my studio until I'd finally had enough and sold all my analogue gear (to Starving Musician) in 2000 and have been all digital since.

I had 25 R/R tapes with (8) tracks of original music that I had to transfer to the digital realm which took me months to get digitally saved/archived into Sonar....it was a time vampire from hell.

Yes...analogue will always have this romantic, sonic appeal but it's the constant maintenance, prices of analogue gear, wearing out of moving components, tape stretching/degradation over time and cost of tape and I became totally worn out after over 20 years of dealing with all of it.

I'd never go back to the analogue world but I can appreciate the dedication to those that remain there for their own reasons.

That's my take on it....carry on.

Brother Rob...If I may?

There's a pretty large contingent of folks who use a digital audio workstation as nothing more than a tape machine. I have an old ProTools 6.4TDM system hooked up exactly like a 16 track recorder, and use it as such - no internal bounces, only track bouncing the old way thru one of the boards at the house (currently a Soundtracs Solo 32); no internal effects except noise reduction to replace Dolby, etc etc etc...It really is a fun way to work, and more hit records were done this way than you could ever begin to imagine. (they still are, really - most of the stuff you hear on the radio was mixed, EQ, whatever, using a console with DAW running as a really expensive tape machine)

In reality, there are almost no limitations...unless you are planning on a lot of file exchange with other studios thoughout the nation, use whatever DAW or system you like, don't skimp on mics and ADDA conversion, and you will be fine.

In my experience a DAW is actually a really cheap tape machine. Look up the price of a Studer A800 series (2" x 24 track), plus tape, plus maintenance and you'll see what I mean. :smile: But of course you're right, many studios still work this way. 1/2" tape is still available as there are plenty of studios here in the UK still mixing to 1/2" 2-track. If you're going to run a 1/2" 16 track, you'll need a good quality de-magnetizer aswell as the line-up tape that a previous poster mentioned.
I'd also agree that DAT machines are not great. The best ones sounded ok (Tascam DA-30 or the pro Sony range) but never brilliant. The tapes are not very transferrable (record on one, won't play well on another) because of the difficult transport alignment and the AtoD converters are now very old tech. There are some dedicated pro level (ie balanced input) CD recorders that might be worth a shot or you could spend the money on an Audio Interface and mix into a computer.

Well.

I did it. Bought the entire lot of stuff. Everything looks pretty good. Still need to check it all out. I'll post more later.

Whee!!!

Got everything home.

I sort of underestimated how much gear this was, but luckily my Jeep (4 Door Wrangler Unlimited) was up to the task. On the hottest most humid day of the year, I stopped at the Bank for cash, trekked to Cousin’s place and picked up my new studio. Everything fit nicely into the Jeep, with the MSR-16 strapped safely into the passenger seat.

Having done a little research, I was most concerned about the heads on the MSR-16. If the recording head was worn or gapped, it would be a bust. Luckily the unit shows virtually zero wear.

The only real “problem” is some idiot got lazy with their screwdriver and cross-threaded and head-stripped a bunch of screws when mounting things in the rack. How freaking stupid do you have to be to eff up a screw? Just take a couple of extra seconds to seat a screw properly and use a decent screwdriver. Five extra seconds and a buck for a fresh screwdriver bit to save damage to a several hundred dollar component.

There is some minor scraping and bending on several components on the “wings” that mount to the racks. The mixer is clean, but 4 of the 200+ knobs are missing their little colored “Top Hats”. The Mixer and Recorder power up and all lights and indicators check out just fine. Mild panic when the Recorder wouldn’t power up the first time I hit the ON Switch, but it was because I didn’t plug it in correctly.

Doh!

Clearly the moment of truth will be to run tape thru this baby and ensure all 16 Tracks are functioning. It will be a while before I get everything sorted out and in place to do a full test & alignment/calibration..

All in all it has been a great experience so far. It is really going to take some time and effort on my part to learn to use this stuff.

Maybe I'll start a Blog.

Maybe I'll start a Blog.

Good idea!

Well, sounds like you got the horse in the barn, now all ya gotta do is teach it what to do!

Glad the main issues were minor. I admire your courage. Keep us posted on your progress!

I hate to be the first to say this, but we need pics... :mrgreen:

I still think you should have the 16 track checked and properly aligned after you make sure everything works.

Pics forthcoming.

My friend who set this whole deal in motion has another good friend who is experienced with analog recording. He'd heard about the gear and volunteered to help me. He will be coming by next week. This is an invaluable opportunity for me. As far as I know all he expects is some good vodka on hand during the session, some future consideration to use the studio, and me to "pay it forward" by working with local musicians.

Even though I haven't asked for his assistance, I am going to be very conscious of the fact that this is a generous act on his part. I'll certainly not take undue advantage of his offer of his time/experience. I'll have some cash on hand and sincerely offer to pay for his time. And I'll have an extra bottle of his preferred drink as a takeaway for him.

I engineered in analog studios from '72 to '95 then went digital. Wouldn't go back.
Especially if the option was with Tascam gear. Most of that what I saw come from them was consumer grade. Plus, tape is going to cost way too much now a days.

Tape hiss can be annoying but it, like single coil hum, is in the nature of the beast. It seems to be the frictional relationship between the tape (sand paper) and the head it self.

Not friction, it comes from the fact that the magnetism on the tape isn't smooth and continuous like a flowing river - rather, there are millions of tiny individual magnetic grains. As those separate grains go past the tape head, each one produces a tiny individual "kick" - tiny random pulses of electric current, which we hear as tape noise. Essentially it's a type of white noise.

Tape hisses for the same fundamental reason as noisy rain on a tin roof - the discrete nature of the magnetism in the first case, and the raindrops in the second. (The tin roof wouldn't be noisy if you put it in a smoothly flowing river - the noise comes from the thousands of individual rain drops hitting the roof, just like the thousands of tiny magnetic particles going past the tape head.)

In the real world you cant "filter" out hiss without also effecting everything else at the same frequency
That's because tape hiss is very wide-band. It's not concentrated in one frequency range, rather it's all over the entire frequency range.

This is one of the reasons why professional versions of Dolby noise reduction used multiple frequency bands - each was attempting to suppress tape hiss in a different band of frequencies.

We had a reel-to-reel tape recorder when I was a kid. Great coolness factor, like those old steam trains. And lousy audio quality, also like the steam trains. :smile:

I've actually travelled on steam trains, and got off the train with my nose, eyes and ears all black with coal dust. Don't want to repeat that experience. In the same way, I'm so very thankful I don't have to deal with the limitations of reel-to-reel tape today.

-Gnobuddy

There are still songs where the hiss almost knocks me out of my chair.
<snip>
It is, however a flaw. I am 100% certain that if they could have recorded "Nights in White Satin" without the hiss, they would have in a heartbeat.
I think the wow and flutter bothered me as much as the hiss. Think of those wavering clock sounds at the start of Pink Floyd's "Time", for instance.

-Gnobuddy

I think the wow and flutter bothered me as much as the hiss. Think of those wavering clock sounds at the start of Pink Floyd's "Time", for instance.

-Gnobuddy

We could probably start an entire thread dedicated to recording errors or other flubs on famous songs...

I always wondered if the "pre-echo" on Led Zeppelin's "Whole Lotta Love" was caused by a misaligned tape or something like bleeding of an adjacent track.

Nothing better than Analog. It's a shame that convenience has forced us all into mp3/mp4 garbage.

You should definitely figure out a way to press everything onto vinyl, and dress in the proper 70's studio engineer garb. bellbottoms, beard, shades...

We could probably start an entire thread dedicated to recording errors or other flubs on famous songs..

...and so I did.

http://www.tdpri.com/forum/bad-dog-cafe/332264-recording-playing-flubs-famous-songs.html#post4228460

...You should definitely figure out a way to press everything onto vinyl...

Oh man, if I could find the equipment and supplies I'd absolutely do this.

...and don't give me any fashion ideas!

...and don't give me any fashion ideas!
You mean, like skin-tight polyester clothes with strategically placed tears in them, and platform shoes on your feet? :mrgreen:

Hard to believe people voluntarily choose to dress up in some of those '70s fashions!

-Gnobuddy

Please, no wardrobe malfunctions.

My last release was done on a 2" 8 track machine at Abbey Road and released on vinyl by a label in Spain. It's on iTunes and Spotify, etc. but I am so glad thatican be heard properly by people who can hear the difference. It was the experience of a lifetime and if all I had was some pro tools files, I would have felt like I didn't really do it right.

You should definitely figure out a way to press everything onto vinyl, and dress in the proper 70's studio engineer garb. bellbottoms, beard, shades...
As long as the plan is to visit the past, why stop at new-fangled vinyl? You might as well go all the way to the original '70s - I vote for visiting the 1870's and mastering onto tinfoil wrapped around a hand-cranked Edison cylinder phonograph.

Or you could totally sell out and go for the new-technology wax cylinders which replaced tinfoil - Edison was using wax by the 1880's.

-Gnobuddy

Man, the new wax cylinders don't have the mojo the vintage ones did.

Great thread.:grin:

I hate to be the first to say this, but we need pics... :mrgreen:

Obligatory poor quality Cell Phone Pics...

Tascam MSR-16 Recorder
http://www.tdpri.com/telephoto/data/1131/medium/Slimtone_MSR16.jpg

Tascam M-2516 Mixing Board
http://www.tdpri.com/telephoto/data/1131/medium/Slimtone_Mixer.JPG

Woo hoo! So how do you see things unfolding from here?

This is probably a good thread in which to mention one of the most enjoyable books I've stumbled across in the past several months: Perfecting Sound Forever (http://www.amazon.com/Perfecting-Sound-Forever-History-Recorded/dp/0865479380/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1339715974&sr=1-1&)

It's about the roughly century and a half of audio recording and reproduction we've been through, but its also about much more than you'd think from the title. I found the book fascinating from cover to cover - it's not just about technology, but also about music, culture, the impact music and technology had on each other, the way we perceive sound and recordings as they evolved, the transition from Edison's idea of perfectly capturing a live performance to today's digitally manufactured, Pro-Tooled, Auto-Tuned "recordings" of performances that never actually existed, the loudness wars of the '90s, the arrival of compressed digital formats, and much, much more.

Brother Rob, congratulations, and here's wishing you tons of fun with all your new gear!

-Gnobuddy

Woo hoo! So how do you see things unfolding from here?

Well first I'll echo the Woo Hoo!.

Now that we have that out of the way...

First I'm going to get everything set up comfortably. I have a desk and a rolling rack. Probably still need some additional rack space.

Then next week my "Pro" is coming over to check out everything a little more thoroughly and show me the basics of how it works.

Then comes the Trial & Error Phase.

I figure I'll start noodling around and learning. I also might take a class at the "Welcome to 1979" place or something like it. I'll also need some additional gear. Microphone Pre-Amps. Compressors. Microphones. Swedish Fish.

When I work on creative projects I like to eat Swedish Fish.

I wouldn't be surprised if this phase takes a year.

Then I'll start working with Local Musicians. Small things. No full drum kits. Perhaps some sort of barter system where I "donate" my time and space and just charge for direct expense - primarily tape.

Then...

...ummm...

...I dunno, I'm making this up as I go. There is no plan.

But yeah, definitely Swedish Fish.

today's digitally manufactured, Pro-Tooled, Auto-Tuned "recordings" of performances that never actually existed

-Gnobuddy

The ain't nothing wrong with ProTools, or Logic. Approach it like a tape machine, capture good performances and material, and it's the same thing.:mrgreen:

If you stick with the Swedish Fish, it's hard to go wrong.

The ain't nothing wrong with ProTools, or Logic. Approach it like a tape machine, capture good performances and material, and it's the same thing.:mrgreen:

Its really how you go about it...When working analog, I like to slam the tape - when working digital, I try never go over -6dBFS to whatever the system is calibrated to, until final mix time. Also prefer not to bounce offline, but to record it all real time back in, so I can keep close eye on the meters...

You know, like what we used to do, back in the day when ProTools rigs were made of wood...

Its really how you go about it...When working analog, I like to slam the tape - when working digital, I try never go over -6dBFS to whatever the system is calibrated to, until final mix time. Also prefer not to bounce offline, but to record it all real time back in, so I can keep close eye on the meters...

You know, like what we used to do, back in the day when ProTools rigs were made of wood...

You had wood?

Luxury!

...we had to make our consoles out of dirt and animal hides. Sand got everywhere. That's where the term "A Gritty Performance" came from...

...and the smell...

...but we loved it. Things were better then.

Its really how you go about it...When working analog, I like to slam the tape - when working digital, I try never go over -6dBFS

Correct.....saturating the tape during takes is very important so one tracks well above the noise floor.

With analog one must use their ears more when tracking and not rely solely on the LED meters.
Can be tricky depending on one's signal chain, gain stages, recording source, brand of tape etc. but I enjoyed all those analog recording years.

OP....enjoy all the new toys and learning process.:smile:

Thought I'd throw out a few old analog pics.
The TEAC I bought in in early 1979 and the Fostex in 1988 along with the M208.
Both were fine machines with many miles.

Correct.....saturating the tape during takes is very important so one tracks well above the noise floor.
...but unfortunately brings with it terrible high frequency harmonic distortion and compression, so that cymbals sound as though they're muffled with pillows.

I wasn't dealing with pro audio, just consumer grade cassette decks, but that tiny little usable dynamic range between tape hiss on the one side and squashed and muffled cymbals on the other was one of the things I most disliked about tape. Talk about being caught between the devil and the deep blue sea!

In 1991 I was still a starving student, but that year I saved up and got my first tape deck with Dolby C and Dolby HX. Dolby HX ("Headroom Extension") was a technique that modulated the RF bias to the recording head, lowering it when there was lots of high-frequency energy in the signal. Doing this drastically improved the tape's ability to accept high-energy high-frequency signals.

And that was also the year when I discovered that even with a brand new metal cassette tape (i.e. not iron oxide, but pure iron particles on the tape), freshly cleaned tape heads, carefully adjusted bias levels, and Dolby C and Dolby HX Pro engaged, my dirt-cheap CD player still sounded far better than the best recordings I could make of CD's onto (cassette) tape. The tape recordings always had audible background hiss and audibly compressed cymbal crashes even on the first playback, and things only got worse on each subsequent playback, as the signal on the tape inevitably slowly deteriorated.

-Gnobuddy

...but unfortunately brings with it terrible high frequency harmonic distortion and compression, so that cymbals sound as though they're muffled with pillows.



Yeah when you're running cassette @1 7/8 ips. Nothing but noise there.:lol:

Now 2" running @ 30 ips. Much less noise.:mrgreen:

Comparing consumer cassette to a Studer is like comparing a Yugo to a Mercedes.

Please...never equate consumer grade cassettes operating at -20 on RCA jacks to pro anything. :D

As for pressing to vinyl, lots of places are doing that now - actual records were the fastest growing media sales for music last year. But the writing is on the wall, and I learned how to read a long time ago. I was just hired as chief engineer for a million dollar plus studio opening next month here in Midland (yeah - go figure) and my first decisions were what platforms to use: I went with will be readily available now and in the foreseeable future - just enough tape to make the tape guys go 'nice,' but the vast majority of work done in ProTools...

...but unfortunately brings with it terrible high frequency harmonic distortion and compression, so that cymbals sound as though they're muffled with pillows.-Gnobuddy

Well....I never experienced this problem on any my drum tracks (my trap set) and my recording gear was only semi-pro at best.

Recording drums in the analog world has it's own myriad of challenges....no doubt about that.:smile:

It was only during my analog learning curve (back then) I did change to the higher speeds.
I think it was 15 ips on the units I posted.

As I stated...."Can be tricky depending on one's signal chain, gain stages, recording source, brand of tape etc...."

Carry on.....

Next step: Get some Pre Amps

I am completely Ignorant regarding Pre Amps. Well, truth be known, I'm pretty generally ignorant on recording, but even more remarkably ignorant on Pres.

I see several Pre Amps with multiple Channels. Some indicate "2 Channels" or "Dual Channel" and some say "Stereo".

Is there a difference? I am guessing not, but it seems strange that even within the same manufacturer they use different terms (Dual vs. Stereo) for different products.

Also, would I just be better off buying two single channel units, or one "Dual" channel?

Finally, I am a "Tube Snob" when it comes to Guitar Amps. Should I lose this snobbery for Pre Amps? Some have a Solid State Stage + Tube Stage. Is that preferable? It sounds like a good option.

It seems that to a certain extent, you get what you pay for.

Any suggestions on getting me to two channels for less than $500? Will I be disappointed for the Less than $500 range?

Next step: Get some Pre Amps

I am completely Ignorant regarding Pre Amps. Well, truth be known, I'm pretty generally ignorant on recording, but even more remarkably ignorant on Pres.

I see several Pre Amps with multiple Channels. Some indicate "2 Channels" or "Dual Channel" and some say "Stereo".

Is there a difference? I am guessing not, but it seems strange that even within the same manufacturer they use different terms (Dual vs. Stereo) for different products.

Also, would I just be better off buying two single channel units, or one "Dual" channel?

Finally, I am a "Tube Snob" when it comes to Guitar Amps. Should I lose this snobbery for Pre Amps? Some have a Solid State Stage + Tube Stage. Is that preferable? It sounds like a good option.

It seems that to a certain extent, you get what you pay for.

Any suggestions on getting me to two channels for less than $500? Will I be disappointed for the Less than $500 range?

IIRC Dual channel means that the channels operate independently of each other. Stereo ichannel means that the 2 channels work together.

Well here is where the saying "you get what you pay for" really hits home.

If I had the cash I would probably spring for this (http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/710/)

In other words I would rather spend $800 on a great Single channel pre than $500 on a mediocre dual-channel pre.

Don't get sucked into the "tube vs. solid state" with mic pres. Anything over a grand better sound good no matter what.

So I finally set everything up. Needed an extra rack for some of the rack mounted effects. It really looks pretty cool. Decided to try and get some noise thru the Mixer.

First hurdle was Manuals. It came with Manuals for the DAT Machines, the recorder, patch bay... but not the Mixer. As I started slogging thru the hard copy version of the Recorder, I quickly realized that my inability to comprehend it wasn't completely my fault. What was labeled as a MSR-16 Manual (Neatly stapled with the MSR-16 Manual Cover) was a completely jumbled bunch of pages from 3 different manuals. Seriously, it seemed like random pages from the MSR-16, Mixer, and some other random manual. And not one was complete.

I'm guessing that the same guy who cross-threaded half of the screws in the rack also set-up the manuals

There was a DVD of the complete MSR-16 Manual. So that is a start.

Can't find a download for the 2516, but did find a version that let's me read it on-line and only charges for downloading it. I'm gonna keep looking.

The On-Line version of the 2516 Manual was enough to help me do an initial set-up and eventually get some sound out thru the Control Room and Headphone outputs.

That was my first real victory.

So freaking much to learn - but super excited.

Next step: Get some Pre Amps

Finally, I am a "Tube Snob" when it comes to Guitar Amps. Should I lose this snobbery for Pre Amps? Some have a Solid State Stage + Tube Stage. Is that preferable? It sounds like a good option.

Any suggestions on getting me to two channels for less than $500? Will I be disappointed for the Less than $500 range?

I'm a tube amp snob too when it comes to amps, but you should definitely lose it for the preamps. Neve, API, Helios,Harrison, Trident etc. etc. consoles from the 70s, known for their great sound and still in demand today (albeit often parted out) - no tubes. And the budget stuff with tubes in it is not even remotely close to the good stuff. Solid state stage plus tube is generally garbage. If you need something warm and glowing in your studio, get a lava lamp.

As others have suggested, really consider whether you really need two pres going at the same time. I don't have any first-hand experience with the under $500 stereo pres. My hunch is they may be okish. The better ones will boost the signal without being too noisy, but just be kinda meh - not a lot of mojo, maybe a bit one dimensional compared to the more spendy stuff. The Duet might be worth looking into. Is the RNP from FMR dual/stereo? Can't remember. Never tried either. Heard good things. In a single channel at that budget there's the Gap 73 (not bad, also has a DI, and you can drive the input giving some sorta tubeish transformer saturation - or not as the case may be) based on a Neve. There's the Warm Audio one that is brand new on the market and is an API clone. A used Daking can be had for that. Syteks are 4 channel for @$900. The Gap has a fatter bottom end and to my ears a slightly rolled off (or smoother or slower) top. APIs and Dakings (based on Trident) have more forward mids but in different ways, and Syteks are more high - fi, fast and clear sounding. So, depending on what kind of sources you're recording, one or the other could be a better fit. But, they all will do the job.

So, long story short, forget about tubes unless you're going to go for something like the UA would be my suggestion. I'm not sure I'd choose it (or any of the "tubey" tube pres) as my one and only pre. Kind of a one-trick pony, but if you like that trick, it's a good one.

Cheers,
Geoff

Update...

Everything is set up and completely functional. The board, tape machine, and effects all seem to work. I've been able to get noise through the entire chain and back out again. I am certain there are easier ways for me to accomplish what I am doing. For example, I have no clue of how to use the Patch Bay. But I did lay down some test tracks and play them back. Haven't tried any dubbing, punching, bouncing, nor mixing down. Still plenty to learn.

The reel of tape that came with my equipment was bad. It suffers from what the Analog guys call "Sticky Shed". The tape disintegrates as it passes through the machine, shedding its coatings and leaving a sticky residue on the heads, guides, and rollers. I've ordered some fresh tape and look forward to playing with it.

Great to hear you're verging on up-and-running! ... Fresh tape's certainly the best bet, but I learned recently that guys archiving old tape "cook" it before putting it on the machine — heating it to a precise temperature and letting it bake overnight. Seems that it softens the stickum so it grabs hold of the iron oxide again. Not that it's any help for your shredded mess; just thought it was interesting. Good luck and keep on chuggin'!

I ordered about a mile and a half of new tape. First batch arrives today.

Whee!

Actually make that about 3 miles of tape...

...and the first delivery just arrived.

I know what I'm doing this weekend!

Go for it! And let us hear some of your experiments.

Interested to hear some of the mixes on it when you have a chance.

Resident idiot here asking: doesn't the mixer have preamps?

Before I get blasted I realize this is not a Neve or SSL. And yeah, you might want one really nice (Manley/Neve/SSL) preamp to go with your really nice U47 but we made plenty of music on on an 80-8, then later the 16 track 1" down to a 3300 all through an M3500 using a U87, 421s and 57s. Just sayin'.

Resident idiot here asking: doesn't the mixer have preamps?

Before I get blasted I realize this is not a Neve or SSL. And yeah, you might want one really nice (Manley/Neve/SSL) preamp to go with your really nice U47 but we made plenty of music on on an 80-8, then later the 16 track 1" down to a 3300 all through an M3500 using a U87, 421s and 57s. Just sayin'.

No, I'm the idiot for not realizing that my mixer has preamps!

In other news...

...the new tape made all of the difference. No sticky rollers. Was able to do multiple tracks and dubs. Had a minor glitch that I had to debug. Bad wiring connection. Also didn't realize exactly how the Monitor loop worked. Got that figured out now too now. Still so much to learn about how to shape the sound.

Yeah, I would invest in nice mics before nice preamps. If you really like doing this a nicer console might be in your future (or you could use the lines in on your current mixer to connect a rack of high end type preamps you can add one at a time) but you're at a great starting place. It won't be long before you're wheeling a 2" machine in there.

And hobbies are supposed to cost money.