DIY multi-track with cassette recorders? [Archive]

alex

August 9th 10, 02:37 AM

Il 09/08/2010 1.24, gjsmo ha scritto:
> I was thinking about making an 8-track simultaneous recorder with the
> standard double tape-decks you see. I've got about 4, and they seem
> cheap enough.
>
> Anyways, besides needing preamps, is this feasible? I'd have to
> synchronize everything - probably with some electronics or just on the
> computer later.
>
> Any ideas?
no idea what your model is but i know that was some doubledeck with a
single motor for both decks in order to keep the same speed during
dubbing. The problem is that even if you can get the same speed for both
decks the audio cassette had no sync system at all.
So it will almost impossible to you to "resynchronize" the two cassette
for the playback. You may sacrifice a track on each deck for sync
purpuse using something like smpte but is very hard to implement from
scratch. and you have to control the speed of each motor.
A much better hobby will be the use of an old vhs recorder toghether
with some part of the tapedeck electronics, expecially if you have more
than one of the same type. Theoretically, if you arrange two autoreverse
not-rotating cassette heads inside the vcr you're almost done ;-). I
suggest you to mount each head on a different support mechnism because
this way you'll be able to calibrate the azimuth. I think that the
regular vhs erasing head will be ok, so no need for those in the
cassette decks.
then you can try to speedup the transport mechanism because the vcr
speed of 1 inch/sec will give you a very small audio bandwidth, limited
to 10kHz at most. 38 inch/sec is commonly used for pro audio in analog
tape recorders, while audio cassette speed was a little less than 2
inch/sec (4.75 cm/sec).
once adjusted the speed you will need to recalibrate the bias current
taking into account the new speed and the new tape type.
The vhs is good becuse at an average-good speed of 4 inch/sec will give
you around one hour of recording using an E240 tape.

good luck, send me your first recording once done and look here:
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~springer/DigitalNeedle/

alex

Peter Larsen[_3_]

August 9th 10, 11:17 AM

gjsmo wrote:

> I was thinking about making an 8-track simultaneous recorder with the
> standard double tape-decks you see. I've got about 4, and they seem
> cheap enough.

For the fun of doing it?

> Anyways, besides needing preamps, is this feasible? I'd have to
> synchronize everything - probably with some electronics or just on the
> computer later.

> Any ideas?

Over the counter 8 track simultanous recording is budget-friendly these
days.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Arny Krueger

August 9th 10, 01:01 PM

"gjsmo" > wrote in message

> I was thinking about making an 8-track simultaneous
> recorder with the standard double tape-decks you see.
> I've got about 4, and they seem cheap enough.

Analog tape at 1 7/8 ips 1/8 track is sooo lame, dude. 1/2 track 15 ips is
really pretty good, but just keeping it in media is way off your probable
budget.

If you want 8 tracks on a budget with really good performance, slip an
M-Audio Delta 1010LT into some old desktop computer that you find somewhere.

If you roust around, there are inexpensive 8-channel mic preamps to be had.

Or, bite the bullet and get a true 8-channel record and play stand-alone
digital workstation. Maybe $400? Actually, this is probably the
high-performance, high-convenience, reasonably high quality way to go. Good
brands include Zoom.

Scott Dorsey

August 9th 10, 01:59 PM

gjsmo > wrote:
>I was thinking about making an 8-track simultaneous recorder with the
>standard double tape-decks you see. I've got about 4, and they seem
>cheap enough.

They don't sound good and they don't synch.

>Anyways, besides needing preamps, is this feasible? I'd have to
>synchronize everything - probably with some electronics or just on the
>computer later.
>
>Any ideas?

If you want to synch multiple tapes, you either need a pilot tone on one
track (which means each tape machine has only one track of audio) or you
need sprocket holes.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey

August 9th 10, 02:01 PM

Peter Larsen > wrote:
>gjsmo wrote:
>
>> I was thinking about making an 8-track simultaneous recorder with the
>> standard double tape-decks you see. I've got about 4, and they seem
>> cheap enough.
>
>For the fun of doing it?

Ping-ponging might be fun. Anything involving synchronizing tape machines
isn't fun. Trust me.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[email protected]

August 9th 10, 05:26 PM

On 2010-08-09 (ScottDorsey) said:
>Peter Larsen > wrote:
>>> I was thinking about making an 8-track simultaneous recorder
>>>with the standard double tape-decks you see. I've got about 4,
>>>and they seem cheap enough.
>>For the fun of doing it?
>Ping-ponging might be fun. Anything involving synchronizing tape
>machines isn't fun. Trust me.
AGreed, and wondering why anybody would want to even think
about doing this.

Regards,

Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
Remote audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

Cyberserf[_2_]

August 9th 10, 07:21 PM

On Aug 9, 11:26*am, wrote:
> On 2010-08-09 (ScottDorsey) said:
> * *>Peter Larsen > wrote:
> * *>>> I was thinking about making an 8-track simultaneous recorder
> * *>>>with the *standard double tape-decks you see. I've got about 4,
> * *>>>and they seem *cheap enough.
> * *>>For the fun of doing it?
> * *>Ping-ponging might be fun. *Anything involving synchronizing tape
> * *>machines isn't fun. *Trust me.
> AGreed, and wondering why anybody would want to even think
> about doing this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard webb,
>
> replace anything before at with elspider
> Remote audio in the southland: seewww.gatasound.com

LOL...you'd be amazed at some of the things I thing of...not to say
I'd do them (still out of jail, so gotta watch out). But, seriously, I
remember reading about the first "flanger" with some guys tapping the
reel to give it a wow and mess with the phase of the signal coming
from two other recorders. The where pushing the envelope. Sure, we
have state of the art...today (I'm sure they also thought they were
playing with the state of the art yesterday (and they were)). There is
little doubt that, by and large, we can do more easily (and at a far
smaller cost) what was done yesterday (witness the size of the first
computer compared to a BlackBerry). Nevertheless, it is my firm belief
(this is religion here, so be careful) that experimenting really must
be at least a part of discovering a new sound and new ways of doing
things...As Einstein once stated, "If we knew what we were doing, it
wouldn't be called research , would it?" I'm not saying such an
experiment would be easy (heck, I have a hard enough time pressing
play and record simultaneously on one machine, much less eight), nor
might it be particularly fruitful, but then, did you know that
Zubrowka Vodka and apple juice taste just like apple pie with a little
cinnamon in it? True story!

Cheers, CS

Cyberserf[_2_]

August 9th 10, 07:24 PM

On Aug 9, 1:21*pm, Cyberserf > wrote:
> On Aug 9, 11:26*am, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2010-08-09 (ScottDorsey) said:
> > * *>Peter Larsen > wrote:
> > * *>>> I was thinking about making an 8-track simultaneous recorder
> > * *>>>with the *standard double tape-decks you see. I've got about 4,
> > * *>>>and they seem *cheap enough.
> > * *>>For the fun of doing it?
> > * *>Ping-ponging might be fun. *Anything involving synchronizing tape
> > * *>machines isn't fun. *Trust me.
> > AGreed, and wondering why anybody would want to even think
> > about doing this.
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Richard webb,
>
> > replace anything before at with elspider
> > Remote audio in the southland: seewww.gatasound.com
>
> LOL...you'd be amazed at some of the things I thing of...not to say
> I'd do them (still out of jail, so gotta watch out). But, seriously, I
> remember reading about the first "flanger" with some guys tapping the
> reel to give it a wow and mess with the phase of the signal coming
> from two other recorders. The where pushing the envelope. Sure, we
> have state of the art...today (I'm sure they also thought they were
> playing with the state of the art yesterday (and they were)). There is
> little doubt that, by and large, *we can do more easily (and at a far
> smaller cost) what was done yesterday (witness the size of the first
> computer compared to a BlackBerry). Nevertheless, it is my firm belief
> (this is religion here, so be careful) that experimenting really must
> be at least a part of discovering a new sound and new ways of doing
> things...As Einstein once stated, "If we knew what we were doing, it
> wouldn't be called research , would it?" I'm not saying such an
> experiment would be easy (heck, I have a hard enough time pressing
> play and record simultaneously on one machine, much less eight), nor
> might it be particularly fruitful, but then, did you know that
> Zubrowka Vodka and apple juice taste just like apple pie with a little
> cinnamon in it? True story!
>
> Cheers, CS

Crap...kinda kills it when I screw up the opening line...meant to say
"...some of the things I THINK of..." ...not THING of...which makes
very little sense in any context <sigh>...time for more apple pie.

-CS

Mike Rivers

August 9th 10, 08:02 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> Analog tape at 1 7/8 ips 1/8 track is sooo lame, dude.

Maybe he's into "lo-fi" recording. If he didn't think so
before, he'll think so after.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

GregS[_3_]

August 9th 10, 09:18 PM

In article >, Cyberserf > wrote:
>On Aug 9, 11:26=A0am, wrote:
>> On 2010-08-09 (ScottDorsey) said:
>> =A0 =A0>Peter Larsen > wrote:
>> =A0 =A0>>> I was thinking about making an 8-track simultaneous recorder
>> =A0 =A0>>>with the =A0standard double tape-decks you see. I've got about =
>4,
>> =A0 =A0>>>and they seem =A0cheap enough.
>> =A0 =A0>>For the fun of doing it?
>> =A0 =A0>Ping-ponging might be fun. =A0Anything involving synchronizing ta=

They
>> about doing this.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Richard webb,
>>
>> replace anything before at with elspider
>> Remote audio in the southland: seewww.gatasound.com
>
>LOL...you'd be amazed at some of the things I thing of...not to say
>I'd do them (still out of jail, so gotta watch out). But, seriously, I
>remember reading about the first "flanger" with some guys tapping the
>reel to give it a wow and mess with the phase of the signal coming

Touching the "flange", I guess thats why they call it flanging.

I remember some DJ's in the 80 used to flange two records of the same song.

greg

>from two other recorders. The where pushing the envelope. Sure, we
>have state of the art...today (I'm sure they also thought they were
>playing with the state of the art yesterday (and they were)). There is
>little doubt that, by and large, we can do more easily (and at a far
>smaller cost) what was done yesterday (witness the size of the first
>computer compared to a BlackBerry). Nevertheless, it is my firm belief
>(this is religion here, so be careful) that experimenting really must
>be at least a part of discovering a new sound and new ways of doing
>things...As Einstein once stated, "If we knew what we were doing, it
>wouldn't be called research , would it?" I'm not saying such an
>experiment would be easy (heck, I have a hard enough time pressing
>play and record simultaneously on one machine, much less eight), nor
>might it be particularly fruitful, but then, did you know that
>Zubrowka Vodka and apple juice taste just like apple pie with a little
>cinnamon in it? True story!
>
>Cheers, CS
>

Richard Webb[_3_]

August 10th 10, 01:39 AM

Cyberserf writes:
> LOL...you'd be amazed at some of the things I thing of...not to say
> I'd do them (still out of jail, so gotta watch out). But, seriously,
> I remember reading about the first "flanger" with some guys tapping
> the reel to give it a wow and mess with the phase of the signal
> coming from two other recorders. The where pushing the envelope.
> Sure, we have state of the art...today (I'm sure they also thought
> they were playing with the state of the art yesterday (and they
> were)). There is little doubt that, by and large, we can do more
> easily (and at a far smaller cost) what was done yesterday (witness
> the size of the first computer compared to a BlackBerry).
> Nevertheless, it is my firm belief (this is religion here, so be
> careful) that experimenting really must be at least a part of
> discovering a new sound and new ways of doing things...As Einstein
> once stated, "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called
> research , would it?"
True enough, but that's the way you *had* to do it then
possibly. But heck, I think I'd rather just go at creating
something with easier to use tools.
DId plenty of that sort of thing when I was a kid, poor
man's multitracking, play back the one machine through
mixer, mix the added sounds in, hope for the best.

Regards,
Richard
.... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

gjsmo

August 11th 10, 02:41 AM

Weird - you say that the quality is gonna be bad.
It really isn't that bad. Nothing an EQ won't fix (and type IV tapes,
I'm using type I). Ok, I'm kidding, EQ is bad.

Seriously, I just got 2 Tascam 112's and 2 112R's. Been recording some
drum covers (just 2-track for now), and they sound pretty good.
I was thinking of just sending a predetermined length 440 tone to the
tapes at the beginning of the recording session, and bringing them
into the computer after that. Or see below.
I honestly don't have the money for a computer studio. Oh, I've got a
computer (actually, more like 5). The newest one... is still in pieces
and just got delivered today. But the interface is too much money,
when I got 4 Tascam decks for free.

They have a "remote" input, but I was thinking of just adding wires to
the buttons (all digital switches) and using a relay/transistors to
"push" play/record/whatever at the same time on all of them. The only
problem I can see is that there's 2 models.
I did have an idea to speed up the tapes... maybe with the pitch
control (or some mods to the pitch control)?
The double decks aren't going to be used, now that I have this. I'm
going to use an old RTR recorder (or more likely, my BR-600 - 8-
tracks, stereo recording) for the final mix.

I'll upload something... later this week, when I get to it. It'll just
be a drum cover, but they don't sound bad.
And the hiss... Dolby NR C seems to take care of that.

Mark

August 11th 10, 03:58 AM

> They have a "remote" input, but I was thinking of just adding wires to
> the buttons (all digital switches) and using a relay/transistors to
> "push" play/record/whatever at the same time on all of them.

that's the easy part...

the hard part will be that the speed accuracy is such that they will
not stay in sync for very long...

try it manually before you spend too much time and effort on the
project..

again, if you want to put effort into something for fun, I suggest a
used Alesis ADAT from ebay for $50

Mark

Ben Bradley[_2_]

August 12th 10, 12:55 AM

I recall in the early '70's as a teen dreaming of making my own
multitrack with a old 1/4" tape recorder I had - if only I had had
four heads from 8-track cartridge players to use. Yes the tracks would
be offset and I could only play back a tape on that machine, and I
needed erase heads if I was going re-record individual tracks ...

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:58:36 -0700 (PDT), Mark >
wrote:

>
>> They have a "remote" input, but I was thinking of just adding wires to
>> the buttons (all digital switches) and using a relay/transistors to
>> "push" play/record/whatever at the same time on all of them.

Now that we've all told you what it's going to do, you could go
ahead and try it as some "art" project to see exactly what happens. It
would be hilarious to listen to, once anyway. Maybe you could even
apply for some Government "stimulus" money to do it. Video the
process, you could be the next Youtube star...

>
>that's the easy part...
>
>the hard part will be that the speed accuracy is such that they will
>not stay in sync for very long...
>
>try it manually before you spend too much time and effort on the
>project..

This very thing was a common question on alt.music.4-track (and
perhaps here on RAP too) - how do you transfer a recording from a
4-track cassette multitracker to a computer two tracks (through the
average computer stereo line input) at a time? You can transfer the
tracks to the computer, load them in a DAW and align their starting
times, but they'll be off well before the end of the song. Even
reel-to-reels don't play back twice with the speed close enough both
times. You just gotta transfer all tracks at once.

>
>again, if you want to put effort into something for fun, I suggest a
>used Alesis ADAT from ebay for $50

From what I've read over the years, ADATs have their own level of
frustration.

My suggestion would be use your current computer, a USB interface
with the most channels you'd want to record simultaneously, and
Audacity.

>
>Mark

gjsmo

August 13th 10, 03:43 PM

I certainly don't want an ADAT, and like I've said, I don't have the
money for a good computer interface.
So I guess I'm left with using VHS or some other wide, single tape
with multiple heads.

Or... I had an idea about synchronizing the motors. What if I modded
the recorders so the motors all ran off of a separate power supply?
I've got one that I can use to test it, and later I can just build
one. Seems like it would work. I'd have to switch the power along with
the recorders, but that's no problem. The point here is cheap multi-
track, not awesome sound. However, these still sound good.

Where's a good place to get 1in+ tape? And is it possible to use all 4
channels on the reversible decks (forward and back)?

Mike Rivers

August 13th 10, 04:41 PM

gjsmo wrote:
> I certainly don't want an ADAT,
Why not? It's a standard, it works, and the newer they are,
the better they sound. Even the worst ADAT sounded better
than the best 4-track cassette recorder.

> and like I've said, I don't have the
> money for a good computer interface.

Then you should either:
(a) Use what you can afford. Surely it won't be the weakest
link in your chaing
(b) Get some more money to buy what you want
(c) Get into some other line of work. You will never stop
spending money on audio gear

> Where's a good place to get 1in+ tape?

Get your Google on. Look for ATR tape or RMGI tape. There
are several distributors. I know ATR has 1" tape, and I
believe RMGI does as well.

> And is it possible to use all 4
> channels on the reversible decks (forward and back)?

Most have only 2-track heads (covering half the width of the
tape), so you wouldn't be able to record a four track project.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

William Sommerwerck

August 13th 10, 04:46 PM

I have a TEAC multi-channel recorder that uses Hi8 tape, if anyone's
interested. It was updated/upgraded a few years ago.

John Williamson

August 13th 10, 04:48 PM

gjsmo wrote:
> I certainly don't want an ADAT, and like I've said, I don't have the
> money for a good computer interface.
> So I guess I'm left with using VHS or some other wide, single tape
> with multiple heads.
>
> Or... I had an idea about synchronizing the motors. What if I modded
> the recorders so the motors all ran off of a separate power supply?
> I've got one that I can use to test it, and later I can just build
> one. Seems like it would work. I'd have to switch the power along with
> the recorders, but that's no problem. The point here is cheap multi-
> track, not awesome sound. However, these still sound good.
>
> Where's a good place to get 1in+ tape? And is it possible to use all 4
> channels on the reversible decks (forward and back)?

If you don't mind building a bit of stuff, a reversing deck with a 4 gap
head will let you use all four tracks at once. You'll either need two
sets of electronics as used by the original makers or you'll need to
build four sets of playback and record amplifiers, and get hold of a
full width erase head, or, preferably, a four gap erase head.

To synchronise in a DAW after the fact, use one track for sync, giving
you three tracks of usable sound per machine.

You could even get two four track cassette heads and mount them onto a
quarter inch deck. As long as you're not planning to exchange tapes with
anyone else, staggering the head gaps won't cause a problem unless
you're editing by physically cutting the tape.

If all you want is cheap analogue multitrack, then something like a
second hand cassette portstudio may well be available for next to
nothing, but even the cheapest digital multitrack setup will sound
better than *any* cassette setup. Most of the cassette portastudio type
units will record two tracks at a time onto a four track standard
cassette tape at 3.75 ips. They also let you use bouncing and mixing
down to get up to ten (mixed after recording) tracks onto one cassette
without losing too much quality or using external facilities. I've seen
an eight track, quarter inch deck in one of the local music stores
recently looking unwanted and sorry for itself.

Synchronising cassette deck motors wuld be about as effective as
shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic. Even if the motors are in
perfect sync, the mechanical tolerances on the capstans and tape
mechanisms are so bad that the best you can hope for is for all the
tracks in a three minute song to end within half a second or so of each
other, even when played back on the recording deck.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Scott Dorsey

August 13th 10, 05:21 PM

gjsmo > wrote:
>I certainly don't want an ADAT, and like I've said, I don't have the
>money for a good computer interface.

The computer interfaces are dirt cheap these days, way cheaper than just
about any alternatives. Cheaper than buying a single decent tape head.

>So I guess I'm left with using VHS or some other wide, single tape
>with multiple heads.

Akai made a machine like that once.

>Or... I had an idea about synchronizing the motors. What if I modded
>the recorders so the motors all ran off of a separate power supply?

Doesn't work because the tape slips. Even if the motors all run at the
exact same speed (or you have one motor physically driving multiple tapes
with a long capstan), they won't stay synched. Been there, done that.

>Where's a good place to get 1in+ tape?

Any studio supply house. I personally recommend Tape Warehouse in Atlanta.
Note that a single reel of 1" tape will cost you more than an M-Audio computer
interface.

>And is it possible to use all 4
>channels on the reversible decks (forward and back)?

You'd have to replace the deck electronics, but the transport would be
usable.

Have you considered just getting an 8-track cassette portastudio?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey

August 13th 10, 05:22 PM

In article >,
William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>I have a TEAC multi-channel recorder that uses Hi8 tape, if anyone's
>interested. It was updated/upgraded a few years ago.

Which model? DA-88 series or one of the instrumentation ones?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

gjsmo

August 16th 10, 06:17 PM

On Aug 13, 12:21*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> gjsmo > wrote:
> >I certainly don't want an ADAT, and like I've said, I don't have the
> >money for a good computer interface.
>
> The computer interfaces are dirt cheap these days, way cheaper than just
> about any alternatives. *Cheaper than buying a single decent tape head.
>
> >So I guess I'm left with using VHS or some other wide, single tape
> >with multiple heads.
>
> Akai made a machine like that once.
>
> >Or... I had an idea about synchronizing the motors. What if I modded
> >the recorders so the motors all ran off of a separate power supply?
>
> Doesn't work because the tape slips. *Even if the motors all run at the
> exact same speed (or you have one motor physically driving multiple tapes
> with a long capstan), they won't stay synched. *Been there, done that.
>
> >Where's a good place to get 1in+ tape?
>
> Any studio supply house. *I personally recommend Tape Warehouse in Atlanta.
> Note that a single reel of 1" tape will cost you more than an M-Audio computer
> interface.
>
> >And is it possible to use all 4
> >channels on the reversible decks (forward and back)?
>
> You'd have to replace the deck electronics, but the transport would be
> usable.
>
> Have you considered just getting an 8-track cassette portastudio?
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Following this...
Can you recommend a good 4 to 8-track simultaneous STANDALONE recorder
- that can be obtained for under $200? Can be tape, or digital.
Something like a BR-600 with 8-track simultaneous maybe. Yeah, that'd
be nice.
Doesn't have to be amazing. Edits can be painful if they need to be,
I'm willing to do it just for simultaneous 8-track.

gjsmo

August 16th 10, 06:20 PM

Wait. What about this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/FOSTEX-MR16-HD-CD-DIGITAL-16-TRACK-MULTI-TRACK-RECORDER-/260649135159?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0

It'll do... Stereo drums + guitar + bass. Vocals and extra stuff
later.

Come to think of it, 4-track simultaneous is enough, really. Just 8
(or 12 or 16) total tracks is needed.

Scott Dorsey

August 16th 10, 07:22 PM

gjsmo > wrote:
>Following this...
>Can you recommend a good 4 to 8-track simultaneous STANDALONE recorder
>- that can be obtained for under $200? Can be tape, or digital.

You might find a DA-38 in that price range. It actually sounds pretty
good.

You can certainly find a Tascam 238 in that price range. It doesn't sound
very good, but it's more or less what you'e asking for.

>Doesn't have to be amazing. Edits can be painful if they need to be,
>I'm willing to do it just for simultaneous 8-track.

Edits aren't possible on these machines. You dub to 2-track, then
razor-blade the 2-track.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Mike Rivers

August 16th 10, 07:38 PM

gjsmo wrote:
..
> Can you recommend a good 4 to 8-track simultaneous STANDALONE recorder
> - that can be obtained for under $200? Can be tape, or digital.

New? You've got to be kidding. This stuff is cheap, but not
that cheap. It may be possible with some old clunker, but
you really should care more about sound quality than what
you can get in an 8-track recorder at that price. If that's
all you can afford right now, maybe you should think about
saving a little money and getting something that you can
actually be productive with.

By STANDALONE, I assume you mean a recorder/mixer that has
connections for mic or line input sources, headphones or
speakers for monitoring and playback, and mixing capability.
If you just want a used 8-track recorder, there should be
plenty of used ADATs for under $200.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

gjsmo

August 16th 10, 10:36 PM

On Aug 16, 2:38*pm, Mike Rivers > wrote:
> New? You've got to be kidding.

No. I never said new, actually. Used is fine, just reasonable
quality.

> By STANDALONE, I assume you mean a recorder/mixer that has
> connections for mic or line input sources, headphones or
> speakers for monitoring and playback, and mixing capability.

Mixing would be great. Don't need it though, I've got a dedicated
mixer already. But I (obviously) want to record multi-track.

I guess maybe an ADAT would be okay. Not too crazy about it, but...
Can you notice any sort of digital artifacts in ADAT? Bottom line,
does it sound more analog-y or digital-y?

Cyberserf[_2_]

August 16th 10, 11:41 PM

On Aug 16, 4:36*pm, gjsmo > wrote:
> On Aug 16, 2:38*pm, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
> > New? You've got to be kidding.
>
> No. I never said new, actually. Used is fine, just reasonable
> quality.
>
> > By STANDALONE, I assume you mean a recorder/mixer that has
> > connections for mic or line input sources, headphones or
> > speakers for monitoring and playback, and mixing capability.
>
> Mixing would be great. Don't need it though, I've got a dedicated
> mixer already. But I (obviously) want to record multi-track.
>
> I guess maybe an ADAT would be okay. Not too crazy about it, but...
> Can you notice any sort of digital artifacts in ADAT? Bottom line,
> does it sound more analog-y or digital-y?

Gooorrrrnnnn...now there's a Woody sounding word....LOL.

-CS

Mike Rivers

August 17th 10, 01:14 AM

gjsmo wrote:

> I guess maybe an ADAT would be okay. Not too crazy about it, but...
> Can you notice any sort of digital artifacts in ADAT? Bottom line,
> does it sound more analog-y or digital-y?

It sounds pretty much like what goes into it. It won't add
that warm analog glow to a recording in a bad room with a
poor mic or preamp, but it won't add any flutter or hiss
either.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[email protected]

August 17th 10, 02:14 AM

Mike Rivers writes:
>gjsmo wrote:
>> I guess maybe an ADAT would be okay. Not too crazy about it, but..
>>. Can you notice any sort of digital artifacts in ADAT? Bottom
>>line, does it sound more analog-y or digital-y?
>It sounds pretty much like what goes into it. It won't add
>that warm analog glow to a recording in a bad room with a
>poor mic or preamp, but it won't add any flutter or hiss
>either.
I can't see where anybody wanting to gang a bunch of cheapo
cassette recorder together to do a diy multitrack would find
anything objectionable in the adat converters.

WIth a small mixer and your adat, and some mics, you can get
to the fun of recording, then as your ear becomes better
trained make improvements as you need them and they make
sense.

Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

Mike Rivers

August 17th 10, 11:41 AM

wrote:

> I can't see where anybody wanting to gang a bunch of cheapo
> cassette recorder together to do a diy multitrack would find
> anything objectionable in the adat converters.

Yeah, but the cassettes are ANALOG, man, ANALOG!!!!

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

Scott Dorsey

August 17th 10, 01:29 PM

> I guess maybe an ADAT would be okay. Not too crazy about it, but...
> Can you notice any sort of digital artifacts in ADAT? Bottom line,
> does it sound more analog-y or digital-y?

The ADAT is almost singlehandedly responsible for the bad reputation that
digital recording has in some circles. It's pretty nasty.

But man, it's a big step up from an 8-track cassette.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[email protected]

August 17th 10, 05:17 PM

On 2010-08-17 said:
>> I can't see where anybody wanting to gang a bunch of cheapo
>> cassette recorder together to do a diy multitrack would find
>> anything objectionable in the adat converters.
>Yeah, but the cassettes are ANALOG, man, ANALOG!!!!
LIke he'd know the difference. <yeah right>. SOunds to me
like he'd do fine with the adats. either get the adats and
then start recording, or maybe find a hobby he would
actually understand. I suggest maybe playing with his toes.

Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

gjsmo

August 17th 10, 09:03 PM

On Aug 17, 12:17*pm, wrote:
> On 2010-08-17 said:
> * *>> I can't see where anybody wanting to gang a bunch of cheapo
> * *>> cassette recorder together to do a diy multitrack would find
> * *>> anything objectionable in the adat converters.
> * *>Yeah, but the cassettes are ANALOG, man, ANALOG!!!!
> LIke he'd know the difference. *<yeah right>. *SOunds to me
> like he'd do fine with the adats. *either get the adats and
> then start recording, or maybe find a hobby he would
> actually understand. *I suggest maybe playing with his toes.
>
> Richard webb,
>
> replace anything before at with elspider
> ON site audio in the southland: seewww.gatasound.com

uh.. yeah, whatever.
Explain the perfect recording I did (1st take, too) on an old, crummy
Technics cassette recorder. Turned out so much better than my digital
recordings.
I'd send it to you, but I can't find the tape :(.
I'd be plenty happy with an analog recorder. Or an ADAT, till I get
some money.

[email protected]

August 17th 10, 11:05 PM

On 2010-08-17 said:
>Explain the perfect recording I did (1st take, too) on an old,
>crummy Technics cassette recorder. Turned out so much better than
>my digital recordings.
>I'd send it to you, but I can't find the tape :(.
>I'd be plenty happy with an analog recorder. Or an ADAT, till I get
>some money.

Understood. THe data is actually a fair bargain for you,
concentrate your efforts on the rest of the signal chain,
reasonable mics that you might not have, and your work. A
better fit than narrow format analog or cassette and I"m
being totally up front serious with you. Enough like analog
in the user interface, you spend your time making music and
capturing sound, not troubleshooting a complex daw.

Best part of it is, when you're ready to mix those tracks
and want a pro control room with pro ears to help you out,
Adat litepipe is everywhere man, and I"m serious. were I
doing what I presume you're doing that's the way I"d go.

I did the narrow formats, cassette, 2 tracks on 1/4 inch
back in the '70's capturing stuff in garages, church
basements and wherever <grin>. IT was just as much fun
then. Bouncing tracks between two different two-track
machines, and formats, etc. Yeah lots of fun.

IN all seriousness, at the level you're playing at the adat
would be your best tool. when/if something merits further
production with facilities you haven't got bring in your
adat, hook up the litepipe to dump your tracks to the daw or
a machine with a higher track count, you're off to the
races. NO funny file format conversion hoops to jump, etc.
I guess that's my question, though a bit sarcastic in asking
it the way I did. What's not to like about the adat right
now? YOu answered that one.

Save a few shekels if you have to, and get the adat.
Immediate quality improvement, and still works as you're
used to working.

Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

gjsmo

August 18th 10, 12:14 AM

On Aug 17, 6:05*pm, wrote:
> Understood. *THe data is actually a fair bargain for you,
> concentrate your efforts on the rest of the signal chain,
> reasonable mics that you might not have, and your work. *A
> better fit than narrow format analog or cassette and I"m
> being totally up front serious with you. *Enough like analog
> in the user interface, you spend your time making music and
> capturing sound, not troubleshooting a complex daw.

I've actually got some good enough mics for what I want to do. Would
it help you understanding my situation if I said I'm in high school?
Yeah. I just bought a $1500 computer, but I've only got the one, and
it's not going to be in the band room. I've got 2 MXL condensers, a
Behringer XENYX 802 mixer and a Boss BR-600, which I'm currently
using. I actually really like it, auto punches are SO easy (besides
the 300 or so FX presets). Problem is, it's only 2-track recording
(but 8-track playback).

So I found these cassette recorders at a recycling place, and got them
for literally nothing. They apparently came from the local university.
They work good enough, so I figured it can't be hard, right? Now the
best idea with them seems to be mounting them inside a VCR. Seems like
it might be hard, but I'm up to it. Sort of.

> Best part of it is, when you're ready to mix those tracks
> and want a pro control room with pro ears to help you out,
> Adat litepipe is everywhere man, and I"m serious. *were I
> doing what I presume you're doing that's the way I"d go.
>
> I did the narrow formats, cassette, 2 tracks on 1/4 inch
> back in the '70's capturing stuff in garages, church
> basements and wherever <grin>. *IT was just as much fun
> then. *Bouncing tracks between two different two-track
> machines, and formats, etc. *Yeah lots of fun.
>
> IN all seriousness, at the level you're playing at the adat
> would be your best tool. *when/if something merits further
> production with facilities you haven't got bring in your
> adat, hook up the litepipe to dump your tracks to the daw or
> a machine with a higher track count, you're off to the
> races. *NO funny file format conversion hoops to jump, etc.
> I guess that's my question, though a bit sarcastic in asking
> it the way I did. *What's not to like about the adat right
> now? *YOu answered that one.

Sounds good. What's not to like about ADAT? well... seems like it gets
as many horror stories as endorsments.

> Save a few shekels if you have to, and get the adat.
> Immediate quality improvement, and still works as you're
> used to working.

I honestly don't think there's much that sounds better than these
cassette recorders without getting top-of-the-line equipment.
Seriously, they sound really good. I've listened to them on my studio
headphones, and Sennheiser earbuds, and they're great. You don't have
to believe me, but they do.

Oh... and about being in high school. I'm smarter than you might think
- I built a calculator from bare chips once. Of course, it only worked
in binary, but... I'm not bad at programming either (C++).

Cyberserf[_2_]

August 18th 10, 12:48 AM

On Aug 17, 6:14*pm, gjsmo > wrote:
> On Aug 17, 6:05*pm, wrote:
>
> > Understood. *THe data is actually a fair bargain for you,
> > concentrate your efforts on the rest of the signal chain,
> > reasonable mics that you might not have, and your work. *A
> > better fit than narrow format analog or cassette and I"m
> > being totally up front serious with you. *Enough like analog
> > in the user interface, you spend your time making music and
> > capturing sound, not troubleshooting a complex daw.
>
> I've actually got some good enough mics for what I want to do. Would
> it help you understanding my situation if I said I'm in high school?
> Yeah. I just bought a $1500 computer, but I've only got the one, and
> it's not going to be in the band room. I've got 2 MXL condensers, a
> Behringer XENYX 802 mixer and a Boss BR-600, which I'm currently
> using. I actually really like it, auto punches are SO easy (besides
> the 300 or so FX presets). Problem is, it's only 2-track recording
> (but 8-track playback).
>
> So I found these cassette recorders at a recycling place, and got them
> for literally nothing. They apparently came from the local university.
> They work good enough, so I figured it can't be hard, right? Now the
> best idea with them seems to be mounting them inside a VCR. Seems like
> it might be hard, but I'm up to it. Sort of.
>
>
>
> > Best part of it is, when you're ready to mix those tracks
> > and want a pro control room with pro ears to help you out,
> > Adat litepipe is everywhere man, and I"m serious. *were I
> > doing what I presume you're doing that's the way I"d go.
>
> > I did the narrow formats, cassette, 2 tracks on 1/4 inch
> > back in the '70's capturing stuff in garages, church
> > basements and wherever <grin>. *IT was just as much fun
> > then. *Bouncing tracks between two different two-track
> > machines, and formats, etc. *Yeah lots of fun.
>
> > IN all seriousness, at the level you're playing at the adat
> > would be your best tool. *when/if something merits further
> > production with facilities you haven't got bring in your
> > adat, hook up the litepipe to dump your tracks to the daw or
> > a machine with a higher track count, you're off to the
> > races. *NO funny file format conversion hoops to jump, etc.
> > I guess that's my question, though a bit sarcastic in asking
> > it the way I did. *What's not to like about the adat right
> > now? *YOu answered that one.
>
> Sounds good. What's not to like about ADAT? well... seems like it gets
> as many horror stories as endorsments.
>
> > Save a few shekels if you have to, and get the adat.
> > Immediate quality improvement, and still works as you're
> > used to working.
>
> I honestly don't think there's much that sounds better than these
> cassette recorders without getting top-of-the-line equipment.
> Seriously, they sound really good. I've listened to them on my studio
> headphones, and Sennheiser earbuds, and they're great. You don't have
> to believe me, but they do.
>
> Oh... and about being in high school. I'm smarter than you might think
> - I built a calculator from bare chips once. Of course, it only worked
> in binary, but... I'm not bad at programming either (C++).

LOL...how relevant....You can get a used Presonus Firebox (6i-10o) for
under $200...seriously...analog is soooo anal.

-CS

gjsmo

August 18th 10, 01:50 AM

On Aug 17, 7:48*pm, Cyberserf > wrote:
> LOL...how relevant....You can get a used Presonus Firebox (6i-10o) for
> under $200...seriously...analog is soooo anal.

Why? Any reason? It would work fine for me, if it was cheaper.

Scott Dorsey

August 18th 10, 01:55 AM

gjsmo > wrote:
>On Aug 17, 7:48=A0pm, Cyberserf > wrote:
>> LOL...how relevant....You can get a used Presonus Firebox (6i-10o) for
>> under $200...seriously...analog is soooo anal.
>
>Why? Any reason? It would work fine for me, if it was cheaper.

I love it, and I use it all the time, but figure $2k for a good 8-track 1"
setup with clean heads and a couple reels of tape, minimum. And really
it's the tape costs that will kill you.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

gjsmo

August 18th 10, 01:56 AM

On Aug 17, 8:55*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> gjsmo > wrote:
> >On Aug 17, 7:48=A0pm, Cyberserf > wrote:
> >> LOL...how relevant....You can get a used Presonus Firebox (6i-10o) for
> >> under $200...seriously...analog is soooo anal.
>
> >Why? Any reason? It would work fine for me, if it was cheaper.
>
> I love it, and I use it all the time, but figure $2k for a good 8-track 1"
> setup with clean heads and a couple reels of tape, minimum. *And really
> it's the tape costs that will kill you.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Alright, fine. It's more expensive. Doesn't mean it's anal.

[email protected]

August 18th 10, 02:37 AM

On 2010-08-17 said:
>I've actually got some good enough mics for what I want to do. Would
>it help you understanding my situation if I said I'm in high school?
>Yeah. I just bought a $1500 computer, but I've only got the one, and
>it's not going to be in the band room. I've got 2 MXL condensers, a
>Behringer XENYX 802 mixer and a Boss BR-600, which I'm currently
>using. I actually really like it, auto punches are SO easy (besides
>the 300 or so FX presets). Problem is, it's only 2-track recording
>(but 8-track playback).
>So I found these cassette recorders at a recycling place, and got
>them for literally nothing. They apparently came from the local
>university. They work good enough, so I figured it can't be hard,
>right? Now the best idea with them seems to be mounting them inside
>a VCR. Seems like it might be hard, but I'm up to it. Sort of.
I still think you'd be happier with an adat for the band
room though. Eventually get you something for the computer
to import your tracks.

>> Best part of it is, when you're ready to mix those tracks
>> and want a pro control room with pro ears to help you out,
>> Adat litepipe is everywhere man, and I"m serious. ÿwere I
>> doing what I presume you're doing that's the way I"d go.
>> I did the narrow formats, cassette, 2 tracks on 1/4 inch
>> back in the '70's capturing stuff in garages, church
>> basements and wherever <grin>. ÿIT was just as much fun
>> then. ÿBouncing tracks between two different two-track
>> machines, and formats, etc. ÿYeah lots of fun.
>> IN all seriousness, at the level you're playing at the adat
>> would be your best tool. ÿwhen/if something merits further
>> production with facilities you haven't got bring in your
>> adat, hook up the litepipe to dump your tracks to the daw or
>> a machine with a higher track count, you're off to the
>> races. ÿNO funny file format conversion hoops to jump, etc.
>> I guess that's my question, though a bit sarcastic in asking
>> it the way I did. ÿWhat's not to like about the adat right
>> now? ÿYOu answered that one.
>Sounds good. What's not to like about ADAT? well... seems like it
>gets as many horror stories as endorsments.
RIght, but those "horror stories" are from people at a pro
level. RIght now, where you're wanting to capture
multitrack all at once for you and your colleagues, the
adat's a good fit for you right now. eventually get an
interface for your computer that handles adat litepipe, dump
your tracks to it. IF you find you're really into better
bang for the buck many good a/d converters use the adat
litepipe standard, so you can always improve on the a/d
conversion when money and desires both coincide. If it's
the orphaned s-vhs format that owrries you, a computer
interface that uses adat litepipe lets you dump tracks and
archive, etc.

AT this stage, you're wanting something that doesn't become
just something you discard when you upgrade, because, as you
say, you're in high school and funds are limited. Being
adat based means you build other digital parts of the
equation to handle adat litepipe format. LItepipe's going
to be around awhile, and if you decide an upgrade of the
recorder platform itself is in order you've got a migration
path with the litepipe and easy portability of your work to
the new machine. Analog is always going to be a real
compromise at the level you can afford to work at right now,
where saving your shekels and going into a used adat right
now is actually longterm your better move, with a built-in
upgrade path without a bunch of headaches. Run the adats
for a couple of years, capture some good tracks with your
bandmates. IF money allows because you've found some gigs
or a better part-time gig, then you can look for a used
Alesis hd-24, litepipe i/o, 24 tracks at your current
sampling rate, lower track counts at higher sr and bit
depths.
Regards,

Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

Scott Dorsey

August 18th 10, 02:37 AM

gjsmo > wrote:
>On Aug 17, 8:55=A0pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>> gjsmo > wrote:
>> >On Aug 17, 7:48=3DA0pm, Cyberserf > wrote:
>> >> LOL...how relevant....You can get a used Presonus Firebox (6i-10o) for
>> >> under $200...seriously...analog is soooo anal.
>>
>> >Why? Any reason? It would work fine for me, if it was cheaper.
>>
>> I love it, and I use it all the time, but figure $2k for a good 8-track 1=
>"
>> setup with clean heads and a couple reels of tape, minimum. =A0And really
>> it's the tape costs that will kill you.
>
>Alright, fine. It's more expensive. Doesn't mean it's anal.

Oh, it's anal too. That's part of the point in using it, that it forces
you into a particular way of working that does not include chopping everything
up note for note. (Okay, if you're crazy you CAN chop things up note for
note but it better be paying time and a half at minimum.)
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Cyberserf[_2_]

August 18th 10, 11:04 AM

On Aug 17, 8:50*pm, gjsmo > wrote:
> On Aug 17, 7:48*pm, Cyberserf > wrote:
>
> > LOL...how relevant....You can get a used Presonus Firebox (6i-10o) for
> > under $200...seriously...analog is soooo anal.
>
> Why? Any reason? It would work fine for me, if it was cheaper.

I was mostly tongue in cheek there...anal-log...get it...it's a joke
son, stop looking so stunned. Seriously, it is a bit of an expense to
get into a good analog rig and you are limited by what you can
afford...doing the deed "in the box" opens up a ton of possibilities
with little or no added expense...need a mini moog, download a free
VSTi and play it...need to double a track to fatten it up...copy the
track and paste it...unlimited tracks at your finger tips with no
bleed from track to track...much better noise floor and
headroom...want a different reverb on that vocal, download a free VSTe
and get all convoluted...audio an midi in the same box...multiple
mixes are a breeze and if you get a good DAW controller, you can have
fader automation without breaking the bank...pitch correction and ease
of editing (without a razor in sight) are all selling features....the
interfaces are dirt cheap (about the price of two reel of Quantegy
456...cheaper if you buy used), the software is great and the sound
can be amazingly warm...almost as warm as an anal log ;-)

Don't get me wrong, a nice analog setup with a Neve desk and Studer
A827, some virgin 2 inch, great preamps, some nice outboards and good
microphones in a great room is wonderful thing...but it isn't an
entry level rig.

There is a lot out there that is very good....an ADAT would be a quick
entry but a firewire setup would really let you grow.

-CS

gjsmo

August 18th 10, 01:21 PM

Well, at least something seems affordable.
Is there anywhere else to get an ADAT machine other than eBay? I found
one at http://cgi.ebay.com/Tascam-DA-88-Multi-Track-Recorder-/330461069384?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0
..

Arny Krueger

August 18th 10, 02:10 PM

"gjsmo" > wrote in message

> On Aug 17, 7:48 pm, Cyberserf > wrote:
>> LOL...how relevant....You can get a used Presonus
>> Firebox (6i-10o) for under $200...seriously...analog is
>> soooo anal.
>
> Why? Any reason? It would work fine for me, if it was
> cheaper.

I guess your time is worth nothing, and mediocre or worse results are your
goal.

This is 2010. Good digital is very easy and relatively inexpensive.

Or perhaps you are enjoying gettting your 15 minutes of fame on RAP by
continuing to pursue a bad idea.

Arny Krueger

August 18th 10, 02:11 PM

"gjsmo" > wrote in message

> Well, at least something seems affordable.
> Is there anywhere else to get an ADAT machine other than
> eBay? I found
> one at
> http://cgi.ebay.com/Tascam-DA-88-Multi-Track-Recorder-/330461069384?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0
> .

ADAT is only a little less stupid than cassette tape, unless you've got an
archive of ADAT tapes you want to transcribe to some other format.

Scott Dorsey

August 18th 10, 02:12 PM

gjsmo > wrote:
>Well, at least something seems affordable.
>Is there anywhere else to get an ADAT machine other than eBay? I found
>one at http://cgi.ebay.com/Tascam-DA-88-Multi-Track-Recorder-/330461069384?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0
>.

That's not an ADAT, that's a DTRS. Media are more expensive, running time
is longer, support is probably better but the hardware is trickier to align.

Be aware that these machines require annual alignment and cleaning and that
will run you around $250/year. Same for the ADATs as well.

None of these machines are in current production because PC recording systems
are just so cheap that they have knocked that whole market sector out.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

philicorda[_9_]

August 18th 10, 02:28 PM

On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:14:10 -0700, gjsmo wrote:

<snip>
>> Save a few shekels if you have to, and get the adat. Immediate quality
>> improvement, and still works as you're used to working.
>
> I honestly don't think there's much that sounds better than these
> cassette recorders without getting top-of-the-line equipment. Seriously,
> they sound really good. I've listened to them on my studio headphones,
> and Sennheiser earbuds, and they're great. You don't have to believe me,
> but they do.

Do any of your tape decks let you monitor off tape while recording?

If I wanted to get an authentic cassette tape sound, I'd record onto the
ADAT, and then pass stereo pairs though the tape machine, monitoring off
tape, and record them into a cheap computer with a M-audio 24/96 sound
card and Reaper.

This would give the cassette tape sound, but also let you sync the tracks
properly together on the computer afterwards. You would also be able to
make clean overdub recordings by going directly into the sound card.

Pretty much any computer of the sort people throw out will do 16 tracks,
so the only cost would be the ADAT and the sound card.

>
> Oh... and about being in high school. I'm smarter than you might think -
> I built a calculator from bare chips once. Of course, it only worked in
> binary, but... I'm not bad at programming either (C++).

Mike Rivers

August 18th 10, 03:58 PM

gjsmo wrote:

> Is there anywhere else to get an ADAT machine other than eBay?

Sure, but I don't think you can get one on Amazon any more.
<g>

Ask here or any other audio forum like Gearslutz.com,
harmonycentral.com or prosoundweb.com. There are people
there who have an ADAT or three in a closet and don't have
the heart to throw it away, but would be pleased to find
someone interested in putting it to good use.

eBay may be the easiest place to find someone selling an
ADAT, but it also may be someone who doesn't have any idea
of what it is or whether it works. Better to get it from
someone who is actually actively working with audio
regardless of whether he's currently using the ADAT or not.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[email protected]

August 18th 10, 05:51 PM

On 2010-08-18 said:
>Is there anywhere else to get an ADAT machine other than eBay? I

WHat you found there was not an adat, but a da88 it sounds
like. Different tape format. I actually preferred the da88
to the adat, but the adat litepipe has survived to modern
digital interfaces for moving tracks between systems, where
the TAscam is essentially orphaned at this point afaik. THe
Tascam was the better unit, and found some adoption in the
film sound world for stems, but Adat was the ubiquitous
format out there in project studios everywhere, so adat's
litepipe transport has survived, and is widely implemented
and supported in other gear.

Because of that, and because you're probably going to want
to upgrade as your skills needs and resources dictate, I'd
keep looking for an actual adat.

Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

gjsmo

August 18th 10, 06:18 PM

On Aug 18, 9:28*am, philicorda > wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:14:10 -0700, gjsmo wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Save a few shekels if you have to, and get the adat. Immediate quality
> >> improvement, and still works as you're used to working.
>
> > I honestly don't think there's much that sounds better than these
> > cassette recorders without getting top-of-the-line equipment. Seriously,
> > they sound really good. I've listened to them on my studio headphones,
> > and Sennheiser earbuds, and they're great. You don't have to believe me,
> > but they do.
>
> Do any of your tape decks let you monitor off tape while recording?

At least 5 that I'm sure of, I'd have to check the others.

> If I wanted to get an authentic cassette tape sound, I'd record onto the
> ADAT, and then pass stereo pairs though the tape machine, monitoring off
> tape, and record them into a cheap computer with a M-audio 24/96 sound
> card and Reaper.
>
> This would give the cassette tape sound, but also let you sync the tracks
> properly together on the computer afterwards. You would also be able to
> make clean overdub recordings by going directly into the sound card.

Not a bad idea. I could use more that 2 tracks at once, actually.
Depends on how ADAT sounds.

[email protected]

June 8th 17, 01:34 AM

On Sunday, August 8, 2010 at 4:24:09 PM UTC-7, gjsmo wrote:
> I was thinking about making an 8-track simultaneous recorder with the
> standard double tape-decks you see. I've got about 4, and they seem
> cheap enough.
>
> Anyways, besides needing preamps, is this feasible? I'd have to
> synchronize everything - probably with some electronics or just on the
> computer later.
>
> Any ideas?

I have been working on a prototype for an 4/8 track out of a couple old cassette 4 tracks and an old hifi stereo VCR. I replaced the cassette deck with the vhs system. They work and sound excellent as stand alone 4 tracks. The trick is figuring out a controller to sync both 4 tracks up together to go on 1 single vhs tape.
I got the idea years ago when I was taking college recording/production classes with Brian Rose. He used a vhs system in one of our classes. he showed us how to modify the head to use the entire width of the vhs tape.

However, It is WAY WAY WAY more trouble than it's worth...especially now that the audio workstations they have now are really affordable. Unless you just like to build stuff out of crap like me....

Scott Dorsey

June 8th 17, 01:45 PM

> wrote:
>
>I have been working on a prototype for an 4/8 track out of a couple old cas=
>sette 4 tracks and an old hifi stereo VCR. I replaced the cassette deck wit=
>h the vhs system. They work and sound excellent as stand alone 4 tracks. Th=
>e trick is figuring out a controller to sync both 4 tracks up together to g=
>o on 1 single vhs tape.

I'm not sure what you mean by a controller? I gather you are using the
existing cassette 4-track heads and stacking them up on across the VHS tape?

Akai at one point made a 12-track machine that used videotape cartridges
but with standard audio tape in them. The particles on videotapes are too
fine for audio work; they sacrifice noise floor for frequency response which
is why VHS audio tracks sound so poor.
>
>I got the idea years ago when I was taking college recording/production cla=
>sses with Brian Rose. He used a vhs system in one of our classes. he showed=
> us how to modify the head to use the entire width of the vhs tape.

Which head?

>However, It is WAY WAY WAY more trouble than it's worth...especially now th=
>at the audio workstations they have now are really affordable. Unless you j=
>ust like to build stuff out of crap like me....

They have medication for that now, you know.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."