Hi,

I'm leaving the digital world except for MIDI sequencing, and need
some advice on mixers and a workable studio setup. I really just
don't like computers for audio, both in terms of the sound I
personally have been able to get from them, the amount of fun I have
while recording / setting things up (a negative amount). So don't try
to convince me otherwise!

So far, I've primarily looking at the Tascam 38 1/2" 8-track and
Tascam MS-16 1" 16-track machines as multitrack recorders.

I need some kind of (inline) mixer that will work with these and also
with my existing gear:

3 Technics turntables (6 mono outs)
1 Alesis Andromeda (16 outs)
1 JoMoX Airbase 99 (10 outs) -- I might replace this with a TR-808,
we'll see.
a bunch of analogue effects (not purchased yet, but I badly want them)

I want to make house, techno, ambient ... all sorts of electronic
music. Although it might be interesting in the future, microphones
aren't a necessity right now (my synthesizer is more than capable of
what I need).

Basically I'm looking for recommendations as to specific mixer models
as well as information on how I could wire everything together.
Naively it seems like I want a 32x8 mixer. Given that I don't want
any Mackie / Behringer / other similar quality gear, I think that
leaves me looking at a Ghost LE.

At the same time, that board is probably way too big and powerful and
expensive for what I want to do. I've been referred to the Tascam
M-300(B) line of mixers as having great sound. I think I could use a
Tascam M-312 to mix the drum machine outs, M-320 to mix the
synthesizer outs, and Tascam M-308 or plain DJ mixer to mix the
turntable outs. This seems workable, but I don't know how painful it
would be for recording (because I lack practical experience; I've just
been using the crappy stereo outs from these machines through a DJ
mixer into my PCMCIA sound card and doing it all on my computer). It
would also take some time to find all the right pieces ... that's not
such an issue.

Any other mixer series or tape machines that I should strongly be
considering? I want warm, beautiful, analog sound. I can't really
afford more than $2000 U.S. for mixers or $2000 U.S. for recorders.

Cheers,
Chris
http://www.sable.mcgill.ca/~cpicke/

P.S. Some recommendations on good phono pre-amps would be welcome; I
know there's a whole audiophile world devoted to that; I'd be willing
to spend up to $200 U.S. per pre-amp.

Chris Pickett wrote:
Hi,

I'm leaving the digital world except for MIDI sequencing, and need
some advice on mixers and a workable studio setup. I really just
don't like computers for audio, both in terms of the sound I
personally have been able to get from them, the amount of fun I have
while recording / setting things up (a negative amount). So don't try
to convince me otherwise!

So far, I've primarily looking at the Tascam 38 1/2" 8-track and
Tascam MS-16 1" 16-track machines as multitrack recorders.

I need some kind of (inline) mixer that will work with these and also
with my existing gear:

3 Technics turntables (6 mono outs)
1 Alesis Andromeda (16 outs)
1 JoMoX Airbase 99 (10 outs) -- I might replace this with a TR-808,
we'll see.
a bunch of analogue effects (not purchased yet, but I badly want them)

I want to make house, techno, ambient ... all sorts of electronic
music. Although it might be interesting in the future, microphones
aren't a necessity right now (my synthesizer is more than capable of
what I need).

Basically I'm looking for recommendations as to specific mixer models
as well as information on how I could wire everything together.
Naively it seems like I want a 32x8 mixer. Given that I don't want
any Mackie / Behringer / other similar quality gear, I think that
leaves me looking at a Ghost LE.

At the same time, that board is probably way too big and powerful and
expensive for what I want to do. I've been referred to the Tascam
M-300(B) line of mixers as having great sound. I think I could use a
Tascam M-312 to mix the drum machine outs, M-320 to mix the
synthesizer outs, and Tascam M-308 or plain DJ mixer to mix the
turntable outs. This seems workable, but I don't know how painful it
would be for recording (because I lack practical experience; I've just
been using the crappy stereo outs from these machines through a DJ
mixer into my PCMCIA sound card and doing it all on my computer). It
would also take some time to find all the right pieces ... that's not
such an issue.

Any other mixer series or tape machines that I should strongly be
considering? I want warm, beautiful, analog sound. I can't really
afford more than $2000 U.S. for mixers or $2000 U.S. for recorders.

Cheers,
Chris
http://www.sable.mcgill.ca/~cpicke/

P.S. Some recommendations on good phono pre-amps would be welcome; I
know there's a whole audiophile world devoted to that; I'd be willing
to spend up to $200 U.S. per pre-amp.

By the way, I should mention some other things:

1) I'm only considering used gear, and live in Montreal, Canada.

2) I have some other gear already (monitors, headphones, DJ mixer,
crappy digital DJ effects). I didn't post about it because I thought it
was sort of irrelevant.

3) I guess I need recommendations on 1/4" mixdown decks. I will be
sending off the reels for mastering to vinyl.

Chris Pickett wrote:


By the way, I should mention some other things:

2) I have some other gear already (monitors, headphones, DJ mixer,
crappy digital DJ effects). I didn't post about it because I thought it
was sort of irrelevant.

So, whats changed?

agent86 wrote:
Chris Pickett wrote:



By the way, I should mention some other things:


2) I have some other gear already (monitors, headphones, DJ mixer,
crappy digital DJ effects). I didn't post about it because I thought it
was sort of irrelevant.


So, whats changed?

Nothing, it's still irrelevant, I just wanted to head off "oh, you'll
need monitors, and headphones, and this and that" sort of responses --
to save people time. I'm basically just confused about which (used)
consoles and tape recorders to look out for and how to set them up for
productive workflow. And sorry for not snipping my original long post
when I made that reply.

Chris

Hi everyone,

Thanks kindly for all the replies so far. I'm going to clarify a few
things (some of which is repeated info), summarize your opinions a
little, and then ask for advice on two options (digital and tape
recorder setups). If you actually take the time to read all the way to
the bottom, I really respect that, it's not expected in any way

1) My current setup and what I want to record:

Rick Novak asked why I don't record everything in MIDI, and then go to a
studio and dump it all to 2-track tape, bypassing a recorder altogether.
There are several complications:

1.1) My synthesizer (the Andromeda A6) is a 16-voice machine. It
doesn't have the practically unlimited polyphony of digital synths. In
many cases I want to use all 16 voices on one track, in particular for
keys, pads, and string patches.

1.2) Not everything is MIDI-based. In the near future I will be
incorporating analog effects, like distortion pedals, phasers, a spring
or plate reverb, and an Echoplex EP-2 tape delay into my setup. In the
not-so-near future, I'll probably start playing with mics also.

1.3) The MIDI data sent by the A6 is really dense. You can thin it out,
but then you lose information. This means you can't really get a
faithful MIDI-only recording for complex parts.

I *need* some way to monitor old parts while playing / composing new
parts. From 1.1-1.3 you can see that it can't all be done using MIDI,
and that I must have a multi-track recorder of some sort.

2) Why I'm excited by tape:

A lot of people have been telling me that if I think problems with
computers are a pain, I'm going to think tape is even more of a pain.
There's confusion as to why I'd want to do this to myself.

2.1) The truth is, actually I love computers. I love writing software
and (perhaps crazily) I even like finding and fixing bugs in that
software. I like having a deep understanding of how things work.
However, I can only handle 40-50 hours a week of computers before I
start to be extremely unproductive. As soon as it's a different
environment, it's like all my energy for solving problems and figuring
stuff out is refreshed. As I'm fascinated with computers, I'm also
fascinated with the workings of all this analog gear; if I learned to
calibrate and maintain a good tape deck, I think I'd be quite happy. I
could do this as a studio intern, but unless I've got one myself, I
can't do it on my own time (which is important) or get as excited
because I'm actually making my own music.

2.2) Sound quality. I'll give you that with just digital recording and
playback (no digital effects), you can get a pretty accurate
reproduction of your input signal at 24/96 (I have a 24/48 card).
However, I'm not looking for accurate reproductions of my input signal.
What I want are the wonderful tape saturation effects, and the other
benefits of going through all the analog circuitry in these machines. I
don't want to worry about digital distortion, and I also wanna be able
to send the needles to +6dB. I've played with tape saturation plugins
(PSP VintageWarmer) and while they're certainly loads of fun (never mind
not really being available for Linux), I'm sure it doesn't compare to
the real thing. I'm also wary of investing in a bunch of digital stuff,
and then having to buy even more gear just to warm things up.

2.3) Aesthetic reasons. I (for one reason or another) think not only
that analog(ue) sound is a beautiful thing, but that the act of using
all non-digital sound sources and modifiers in a signal chain, from
synthesizer to vinyl record to human ears, especially when making
strictly electronic music, is also a beautiful thing. It's like this
alternate technological reality that could have been if computers didn't
exist (yes, I acknowledge computers facilitate control, but they don't
have to). It's the same reason I listen to / play vinyl and not CD's.
It's the same reason I don't like digital photography (despite the
existence of good SLR digital cameras). It's the same reason I'm
fascinated by old films and not by The Matrix or Star Wars. Digital
forms of traditional art, where the digital stuff is trying to mimic the
analog stuff, just don't do it for me. I do love the *new* art forms
that have arisen from digital media: the Pixar films (not possible with
traditional animation techniques), computer games (both graphical and
text-based), and of course the art that is writing software.

2.4) I'm jealous. You guys are pros, you're big boys, you all got to
play with these machines for years. I'm 24, and I'm not really liking
the digital revolution that's eaten up the rest of my generation.
Analog equipment is getting more and more obscure all the time, and if I
don't do this now, never mind me not helping to preserve something
that's dying, I feel like I won't get to do it in my lifetime.

3) Advice I've been given so far:

I recognize that you all have infinitely more experience than me in
getting good professional recordings made. That's why I came here.

3.1) Don't settle for narrow-gauge tape, or a dying recorder that needs
considerable work before it's usable. I would be better of with a
digital recorder in that situation. A 1" 8-track or 2" 16-track is what
I should be prepared to buy, and for a given project expect to invest in
half a dozen reels of tape.

3.2) Don't settle for a cheap console either. Regardless of whether I'm
using a tape deck or digital recorder, get a good console that can
accomodate my inputs and effects and give me the flexibility I need.

3.3) On top of the cost of a recorder and console, be prepared to fork
out an equal amount of cash for all kinds of accessories: cables,
patchbays, racks, stands, and power supplies.

3.4) Working with tape is not necessarily *easier* than working with
digital media, especially if I could rely on stable embedded processors
(magic pixies), and it should be clear to me that maintaining all this
equipment is a considerable investment in time, money, effort, and not
being able to produce music. Basically, I should be having an equal
amount of fun being a technician / engineer as would a musician /
producer; if not, tape really isn't for me.

3.5) Portability issues. I should make sure not buy anything too too
big if I plan to move anytime soon (basically, a washing machine of a
tape deck is the most I should try to accomodate). A studio console is
meant to get installed in a studio, not in an apartment.

Please add if I've missed anything here ...

4) WTB / recommendations / setup proposals / budget establishment:

It seems there are basically two options for me, digital recorder +
bigger console or tape recorder + smaller console. It would be nice to
establish reasonable amounts of time and money for each proposal, if you
can help me with that (I'm not too clear on the market value of these
products), and then I'll meditate on what I want to do. The $4-5K I've
previously mentioned for console and recorder together obviously doesn't
include other costs, and I'd like to get it sorted out before I commit
to either. I do have an income, and depending on how far my scholarship
applications make it down the stairs when they throw them, I might have
an extra $10000 to spend (but that includes outboard gear and effects
and probably getting my first record pressed too). Again, I'm all about
high-quality used goods.

4.1) Digital recorder. This would essentially leave me more money to
spend on other goods, like a nicer console. I've been told by you guys
that a good solution can be had for under $1000. Products include:

High end: iZ RADAR systems (fine, that won't be under $1K)
Down the chain: systems from Yamaha, Roland/BOSS, TASCAM, etc.
e.g. TASCAM DA-38, DA-78
Mackie MDR24/96 24-track

4.2) Tape-based recorder. If I did this, I would propose to have a 1"
8-track (2" machines being too expensive), and also to sell my JoMoX
AirBase 99 drum machine (10 outputs), gaining me $600, and limit myself
to the Alesis Andromeda A6 (16 outputs). I can make all drum sound with
the A6 and the JoMoX is fairly noisy and I'm just not in love with it.
I think this means I would be fine (for a few records) with a 16-channel
board. I don't know how much I should expect to pay for a tape deck,
but it *seems* that I'll be able to get something in good shape for
$2-3K (plus a good mastering deck for $1K).

Machines to avoid: all narrow gauge, Scully
Machines to look out for:
Ampex-102 (as a 2-track mastering deck)
Ampex MM-1200 (1" 8-track version)
Stephens machines
TASCAM 2" machines (but I'm aiming for 1" 8-track)
Scully 280B (as a 2-track mastering deck)
MCI 1" 8-tracks, if they made them.
Ampex AG-440 (either 2-track for mastering, 8-track for recording)

There is possibly a good deal on an AG-440 to be had in Washington (I
posted this elsewhere in response to Mike Rivers):

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...sPageName=WDVW

The biggest concern I have with 1" 8-track vs. 2" 16-track is whether I
lose sound quality by bouncing and then mixing bounced tracks together.
The pain of doing so is not so much an issue. On the other hand, if I
can't get great recordings with a 1" 8-track, I'd really like to know!

4.3) Analog console (either way). A big studio console is impractical
(5 feet wide is sort of a limit) and I'm looking at 16 - 32-channel
boards. Having multiple boards is understood to be bad.

Soundcraft Ghost LE: currently one ending in 7 hours for $1500-2000
(this one needs work, and the seller is a bit sketchy)

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...e=STRK:MEWA:IT

Mackie 32x8 (not as nice as a Ghost)
Small Sound Workshop or MCI or Trident consoles (almost too much)
Soundtracs Solo or Soundtracs Topaz
Not the Tascam 300B series since they make noise and cause EMI.
"real" stuff from Randy Blevins, Boynton studios

So, assuming I go with the tape recorder, what about a 16-channel
console? What can I get that's really a step up from the Mackie 1604?
How much should I expect to pay? It needs to be inline.

4.4) Cables and patchbays and power supplies and stuff: budget $1000 to
$2000. How much do I really need if I just have a pile of effects, my
Andromeda, a recorder, and the mixer? Obviously this amount differs if
I'm getting an 8-track tape recorder and 16-channel console or 24-track
digital recorder and 32-channel console.

4.5) Other stuff? I have Alesis M1 Active MK-II monitors ("good
enough") and AKG-271S headphones (excellent). I work in an open and
oddly-shaped central living room area, so acoustic treatment doesn't
seem to be much of an issue. I'm not sure, but it would seem I'm more
in need of things like compressors and limiters if I don't have a tape deck.

Cheers,
Chris
--
http://www.sable.mcgill.ca/~cpicke/ (email address on that page)

In article writes:

Thanks kindly for all the replies so far. I'm going to clarify a few
things (some of which is repeated info), summarize your opinions a
little, and then ask for advice on two options (digital and tape
recorder setups).

1.1) My synthesizer (the Andromeda A6) is a 16-voice machine. It
doesn't have the practically unlimited polyphony of digital synths. In
many cases I want to use all 16 voices on one track, in particular for
keys, pads, and string patches.

This is a performance instrument. By multitracking with it, you'll be
right up there with the early creators of electronic music.

I *need* some way to monitor old parts while playing / composing new
parts. From 1.1-1.3 you can see that it can't all be done using MIDI,
and that I must have a multi-track recorder of some sort.

This is certainly a good reason to have a recorder and console.

2.1) The truth is, actually I love computers. I love writing software
and (perhaps crazily) I even like finding and fixing bugs in that
software.

Well, yeah, but when you have your musician hat on, you'd probably
rather be a musician.

What I want are the wonderful tape saturation effects, and the other
benefits of going through all the analog circuitry in these machines.

I think this is highly overrated, but there's no question that analog
recorders have a sound. And cheap analog recorders have a different
sound. Guess which ones the serious producers and engineers who like
analog prefer. The guys who read Tape Op use crappy analog recorders
because they're into lo-fi, but you don't want to limit yourself to
that sound. It gets tiring really fast.

2.3) Aesthetic reasons. I (for one reason or another) think not only
that analog(ue) sound is a beautiful thing, but that the act of using
all non-digital sound sources and modifiers in a signal chain, from
synthesizer to vinyl record to human ears, especially when making
strictly electronic music, is also a beautiful thing.

Gee, and all of these years, we've been striving for ACCURACY! g But
on a good playback system vinyl records can sound better than CDs, but
that's because there are a lot of bad CDs, and it was too expensive to
make a bad vinyl record.

3.1) Don't settle for narrow-gauge tape, or a dying recorder that needs
considerable work before it's usable. I would be better of with a
digital recorder in that situation.

3.2) Don't settle for a cheap console either.

3.3) On top of the cost of a recorder and console, be prepared to fork
out an equal amount of cash for all kinds of accessories: cables,
patchbays, racks, stands, and power supplies.

Those are all part of real life, much of which has been replaced by
the computer in contemporary studios.

3.4) Working with tape is not necessarily *easier* than working with
digital media, especially if I could rely on stable embedded processors
(magic pixies),

I like to look at it the other way. I use computer stuff when it's as
easy or easier than working with tape. But I have my own
interpretation of what "easy" is, and you probably do, too.

and it should be clear to me that maintaining all this
equipment is a considerable investment in time, money, effort, and not
being able to produce music.

That's not necessarily so. It's not maintenance-free, but it only
takes a few minutes to do a recorder alignment, and troubleshooting a
piece of hardware is far more logical than troubleshooting a computer
(particulary software-induced) problem. With analog equipment, you
actually trace the problem and fix something where with a computer,
you reload the softare, and if that doesn't fix it, reload to a lower
level and try again, essentially rebuilding the system from the ground
up. That may be faster in the long run than finding a bad IC and
replacing it, but it's far less satisfying because you don't know what
was really wrong and what you actually fixed.

3.5) Portability issues. I should make sure not buy anything too too
big if I plan to move anytime soon (basically, a washing machine of a
tape deck is the most I should try to accomodate). A studio console is
meant to get installed in a studio, not in an apartment.

Definitely true.

It seems there are basically two options for me, digital recorder +
bigger console or tape recorder + smaller console.

How do you figure this? You need a console large enough to accommodate
the number of inputs you have, which includes tape tracks as well as
sources. That's the same whether you have a digital recorder or an
analog one.

The $4-5K I've
previously mentioned for console and recorder together obviously doesn't
include other costs, and I'd like to get it sorted out before I commit
to either.

I might have
an extra $10000 to spend (but that includes outboard gear and effects
and probably getting my first record pressed too). Again, I'm all about
high-quality used goods.

That's quite adequate if you shop carefully (unless you wrote an extra
zero there and your total budget tops out at $6K. But that's still
manageable.

4.1) Digital recorder. This would essentially leave me more money to
spend on other goods, like a nicer console. I've been told by you guys
that a good solution can be had for under $1000. Products include:

High end: iZ RADAR systems (fine, that won't be under $1K)
Down the chain: systems from Yamaha, Roland/BOSS, TASCAM, etc.
e.g. TASCAM DA-38, DA-78
Mackie MDR24/96 24-track

Excluding the Radar, that's going to be in the $600 - $1200 range,
which will get you 8, 16 (two DA-38s), or up to 24 (Mackie) tracks.
And by golly, $1200 for a used Mackie MDR24/96 is a heck of a bargain
for 24 tracks - but you can't slam the meters and get it to sound
like an overdriven guitar guitar amplifier.

4.2) Tape-based recorder. If I did this, I would propose to have a 1"
8-track (2" machines being too expensive), and also to sell my JoMoX
AirBase 99 drum machine (10 outputs), gaining me $600, and limit myself
to the Alesis Andromeda A6 (16 outputs). I can make all drum sound with
the A6

That's another approach. With 8 tracks, you'll have to make some
decisions in real time, the more complex your compositions, the more
decisions. But that's where the fun is.

I don't know how much I should expect to pay for a tape deck,
but it *seems* that I'll be able to get something in good shape for
$2-3K (plus a good mastering deck for $1K).

That's possible if you're willing to accept doing some work and
spending some money getting it into good shape when you need it to be
in good shape, but if it's functional, you can start learning how to
use your system even if the high frequency response is a little
ragged, and when you're ready to record your magnum opus, get the
heads refurbished and get a good alignment.

Machines to look out for:
Ampex-102 (as a 2-track mastering deck)

I don't see those for $1,000 any more (or yet) but an AG-440 in good
shape for $750 would be a good bet.

Ampex MM-1200 (1" 8-track version)

I'm not sure they made any 8-track MM1200s, or if they did, they're
pretty rare. Most were 24-track. Most MM1100s were 16-track. There
were plenty of MM1000 8-tracks but they're bigger than a refrigerator
and I suspect that most of them have been dismantled for the
electronics (same as AG-440) and the transports have been striped for
motors and mechanical parts, with the chassis going to the landfill.
Believe me, you DON'T want an MM1000 8-track.

Stephens machines

Too rare to bother with.

TASCAM 2" machines (but I'm aiming for 1" 8-track)

The TASCAM MTR-24 2" 24-track machine was great, but the 1" 8-track (I
don't remember the model) wasn't so hot. The Otari MX-80 occasionally
shows up as an 8-track and that's a decent machine.

MCI 1" 8-tracks, if they made them.

They definitely did.


There is possibly a good deal on an AG-440 to be had in Washington (I
posted this elsewhere in response to Mike Rivers):

A tip about posting URLs to auctions in newsgroups: Use tinyurl.com to
convert the URL to something that will fit on one line. Those of us
who don't have up-to-date news readers and up to date ISPs often find
the posted link broken in the middle. It's too much trouble to paste
together and I don't bother. Alternately, just post the eBay item
number. Anybody who would bother to look probably already has a
bookmark to Search eBay.

The biggest concern I have with 1" 8-track vs. 2" 16-track is whether I
lose sound quality by bouncing and then mixing bounced tracks together.

Look at the positive side. You're gaining that analog sound. It's all
about managing the loss of quality creatively. Lots of great
recordings have been made on 8 tracks or fewer, with bouncing. You can
do clever things like recording 8 tracks, mixing them to a simple
computer-based system, then dumping that mix back to tape. More
tracks, more stereo.

4.3) Analog console (either way). A big studio console is impractical
(5 feet wide is sort of a limit) and I'm looking at 16 - 32-channel
boards. Having multiple boards is understood to be bad.

Multiple boards isn't all that bad, but it's a more complicated setup
and you don't have the flexibility that you get from one well thought
out multitrack recording board.

Not the Tascam 300B series since they make noise and cause EMI.

They don't cause EMI, but they make a good antenna for EMI that's
floating around everywhere.

So, assuming I go with the tape recorder, what about a 16-channel
console? What can I get that's really a step up from the Mackie 1604?
How much should I expect to pay? It needs to be inline.

If you're using a 16-channel recorder, you'll want a console with more
than 16 input channels. For what you have and where you're going, I
think you're on the right track with a 24 or 32 input console. And you
want something with tape monitoring - an in-line console or split
monitor (like an older Soundcraft, like a 600). You probably don't
need a lot of subgroup outputs, but subgroups will help you in mixing,
and you may want to (particularly if you're limited on tracks) want to
mix several inputs to a single bus or pair of busses to go to one or
two recorder tracks. An 8-bus console should be adequate for you, but
a 4-bus console might cramp you a bit.

4.4) Cables and patchbays and power supplies and stuff: budget $1000 to
$2000. How much do I really need if I just have a pile of effects, my
Andromeda, a recorder, and the mixer?

Count the jacks and divide by two. If you're using a patchbay, don't
divide by two.

Cheers.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers wrote:

The TASCAM MTR-24 2" 24-track machine was great, but the 1" 8-track (I
don't remember the model) wasn't so hot.

MX-70?

--
ha

Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes:

This is a performance instrument. By multitracking with it, you'll be
right up there with the early creators of electronic music.


That's the optimistic viewpoint, yes The best usage of these
machines so far seems to be when people use them live in a band.

I think this is highly overrated, but there's no question that analog
recorders have a sound. And cheap analog recorders have a different
sound. Guess which ones the serious producers and engineers who like
analog prefer. The guys who read Tape Op use crappy analog recorders
because they're into lo-fi, but you don't want to limit yourself to
that sound. It gets tiring really fast.

Yeah, I wanna be able to lo-fi, but not have to do lo-fi. I am trusting
you guys not to let me buy crap. I know some TapeOp guys read this
newsgroup, and some of them even have fairly nice $5-10K consoles, or
work in studios.

Gee, and all of these years, we've been striving for ACCURACY! g But
on a good playback system vinyl records can sound better than CDs, but
that's because there are a lot of bad CDs, and it was too expensive to
make a bad vinyl record.

There's something like 200 releases a week of electronic stuff alone
coming out on vinyl each week, and most of it's bad. I have yet to hear
a recording / system combination where I can ABX the CD and the vinyl
versions and like the CD better. Sonic arguments and hand-waving aside,
there are still many other reasons I like vinyl.

Those are all part of real life, much of which has been replaced by
the computer in contemporary studios.

Well, as I was carrying on about, it's not just in studios where real
life is getting replaced ...

I like to look at it the other way. I use computer stuff when it's as
easy or easier than working with tape. But I have my own
interpretation of what "easy" is, and you probably do, too.

"interesting" and "fun" are also desirable qualities in any work I do.

That's not necessarily so. It's not maintenance-free, but it only
takes a few minutes to do a recorder alignment, and troubleshooting a
piece of hardware is far more logical than troubleshooting a computer
(particulary software-induced) problem. With analog equipment, you
actually trace the problem and fix something where with a computer,
you reload the softare, and if that doesn't fix it, reload to a lower
level and try again, essentially rebuilding the system from the ground
up. That may be faster in the long run than finding a bad IC and
replacing it, but it's far less satisfying because you don't know what
was really wrong and what you actually fixed.

That's reassuring. You seem to belong to the "it's not _that_ bad, and
actually quite workable" camp, whereas others belong to the "avoid at
all costs" camp. Not that either is necessarily a more valid opinion.

It seems there are basically two options for me, digital recorder +
bigger console or tape recorder + smaller console.


How do you figure this? You need a console large enough to accommodate
the number of inputs you have, which includes tape tracks as well as
sources. That's the same whether you have a digital recorder or an
analog one.

I had somehow figured that since digital recorders are cheaper, I could
therefore afford a better console, and since I'm quite concerned with
the quality as much as the flexibility, it would make sense and might be
okay to get something smaller. But it wouldn't leave room to grow.

The $4-5K I've
previously mentioned

I might have
an extra $10000 to spend

That's quite adequate if you shop carefully (unless you wrote an extra
zero there and your total budget tops out at $6K. But that's still
manageable.

It's hopefully $10K extra, $15K total. In fact I could spend more money
than this (loans, savings, jobs, whatever), but it's hard to say where
to stop: what I want is to make great recordings with a bit of work,
equipment that I won't look back on and say, "The sound quality was just
too limited by my gear".

4.1) Digital recorder.

Excluding the Radar, that's going to be in the $600 - $1200 range,
which will get you 8, 16 (two DA-38s), or up to 24 (Mackie) tracks.
And by golly, $1200 for a used Mackie MDR24/96 is a heck of a bargain
for 24 tracks - but you can't slam the meters and get it to sound
like an overdriven guitar guitar amplifier.

Hmmm... I'll keep looking into digital MTs, but if you hadn't guessed by
now, the prospect of it kind of makes my heart sink.

There is possibly a good deal on an AG-440 to be had in Washington (I
posted this elsewhere in response to Mike Rivers):


A tip about posting URLs to auctions in newsgroups: Use tinyurl.com to
convert the URL to something that will fit on one line. Those of us
who don't have up-to-date news readers and up to date ISPs often find
the posted link broken in the middle. It's too much trouble to paste
together and I don't bother. Alternately, just post the eBay item
number. Anybody who would bother to look probably already has a
bookmark to Search eBay.

Sorry. tinyurl rocks! I wish I'd known about it earlier in life. The
item number was 3761294349 and the url is:

http://tinyurl.com/3mqq9

(I am very aware that fixed width, 80 column text is a Good Thing)

Google tells me that the electronics in the AG-440 are the same as in
the MM-1200. Obviously restoration work is a consideration (the guy in
that auction spent 2.5 years ...), but is there any other reason not to
look for this model besides the fact that it can't ever be more than a
1" 8-track machine?


The biggest concern I have with 1" 8-track vs. 2" 16-track is whether I
lose sound quality by bouncing and then mixing bounced tracks together.


Look at the positive side. You're gaining that analog sound. It's all
about managing the loss of quality creatively. Lots of great
recordings have been made on 8 tracks or fewer, with bouncing. You can
do clever things like recording 8 tracks, mixing them to a simple
computer-based system, then dumping that mix back to tape. More
tracks, more stereo.

Or dumping to a 1/4" mastering deck I suppose. I think I'm gonna lose
one track right off the bat for striping the tape with timecode.

They don't cause EMI, but they make a good antenna for EMI that's
floating around everywhere.

Oh, that would seem even worse. My neighbours upstairs put in a
wireless router that totally destroyed my previously perfect wireless
coverage, if it's any indication of the "air quality" around here.


So, assuming I go with the tape recorder, what about a 16-channel
console? What can I get that's really a step up from the Mackie 1604?
How much should I expect to pay? It needs to be inline.


If you're using a 16-channel recorder, you'll want a console with more
than 16 input channels. For what you have and where you're going, I
think you're on the right track with a 24 or 32 input console. And you
want something with tape monitoring - an in-line console or split
monitor (like an older Soundcraft, like a 600). You probably don't
need a lot of subgroup outputs, but subgroups will help you in mixing,
and you may want to (particularly if you're limited on tracks) want to
mix several inputs to a single bus or pair of busses to go to one or
two recorder tracks. An 8-bus console should be adequate for you, but
a 4-bus console might cramp you a bit.

I definitely want to mix inputs together and record subgroup output (at
least for all polyphonic patches). An 8-bus console with an 8-track
recorder seems like a good match.

It seems like having a good EQ on the busses is almost as useful as on
the individual channels in my situation ... it would be a pain to adjust
the EQ identically for each voice in polyphonic patches. I guess I
could always send the subgroup output back into the other channels.

I don't know why I was thinking 16 channels only; it would leave me to
be buying another mixer almost as soon as I got new gear. Even 32x8
starts to seem limiting, but it has lots more room.

The Ghost LE or the 600 series have what I want in terms of flexibility
and size and price (at least used). The question seems to be whether I
want to try and find something better in terms of sound that isn't the
size of a small tank. I looked at Speck's LiLo and xtramix stuff some
more, but I don't think I want just a line mixer, and the xtramix is
rackmount only with no EQ's (despite being available for $1-2K used).
The Soundtracs Topaz seems frustratingly limited, and it's hard to find
information on the Soundtracs Solo. I've started asking around locally,
obviously not shipping stuff saves a few hundred bucks.

Cheers,
Chris

In article writes:

This is a performance instrument. By multitracking with it, you'll be
right up there with the early creators of electronic music.

That's the optimistic viewpoint, yes The best usage of these
machines so far seems to be when people use them live in a band.

Oh, don't get too big a head over it. I wasn't commenting on your
skills or creativity, but rather pointing out that the early
synthesists didn't have polyphonic instruments and when they wanted to
layer sounds, they had to do it by changing patches (literally) and
recording sound-on-sound.

There's something like 200 releases a week of electronic stuff alone
coming out on vinyl each week, and most of it's bad.

Well, there's 200 releases of acoustic singer/songwriters coming out
on CD each week, and most of it is bad. But that's a prejudiced value
judgement on my part and has nothing to do with the fact that they're
on CD (though many of them aren't recorded or mixed very well either).
A characteristic of much of the modern 'electronica' is that it sounds
bad. It's supposed to.

That's reassuring. You seem to belong to the "it's not _that_ bad, and
actually quite workable" camp, whereas others belong to the "avoid at
all costs" camp.

Yup. You'll find the "avoid it at all costs" camp is largely populated
with people who have only been exposed to analog recording in the form
of cassette, and probably multitrack cassette. They're also very
comfortable buying and loading software. I don't fit in either of
those boxes. But then you get old farts like Rudy Van Gelder who have
some sort of high-placed reputation for making really great sounding
analog recordings. In a recent Tape Op interview, he said he rarely
uses analog recorders any more. And some people who like to pick nits
say that his more recent recordings don't sound nearly as good as his
old ones. I think it has to do with the talent and the way they want
to record (Van Gelder hinted at this in the interview).

I had somehow figured that since digital recorders are cheaper, I could
therefore afford a better console, and since I'm quite concerned with
the quality as much as the flexibility, it would make sense and might be
okay to get something smaller. But it wouldn't leave room to grow.

Bad idea.

It's hopefully $10K extra, $15K total. In fact I could spend more money
than this (loans, savings, jobs, whatever), but it's hard to say where
to stop

Well, it sounds like this is going to be a hobby, at least for quite a
while. A hobby is supposed to be a place where you can spend money and
have fun without worrying that you're essentially flushing that money
down the toilet. Don't spend more than you can afford to lose. And
stop spending when it's less fun to spend the money than it used to
be.

http://tinyurl.com/3mqq9

I think this is one that there was some discussion of on the Ampex
list. It's obviously a paste-up. Vark Audio is a good place, but the
seller is a little imaginative with his claim that the motors needed to
be replaced because the deck was originally designed for 7" reels.

is there any other reason not to
look for this model besides the fact that it can't ever be more than a
1" 8-track machine?

No sel-sync and no automatic monitor switching. Overdubbing will take
three more hands than you have (considering that you need one or two
to play your Andromeda).

The biggest concern I have with 1" 8-track vs. 2" 16-track is whether I
lose sound quality by bouncing and then mixing bounced tracks together.

You always lose sound quality no matter what you do, but it's
manageable. Would you be happy if you could sound like The Beatles?

It seems like having a good EQ on the busses is almost as useful as on
the individual channels in my situation ... it would be a pain to adjust
the EQ identically for each voice in polyphonic patches. I guess I
could always send the subgroup output back into the other channels.

Very few recording consoles have EQ on the busses, but it's not
uncommon to have insert points on the busses so you can patch in an
outboard equalizer. But basically what you do is adjust the channel
levels, pans, and EQs until the submix sounds the way you like it, and
that's what you put on tape. Then when you do your final mixdown, you
can tweak that submix through the normal console channel EQ.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Chris Pickett wrote:

4.1) Digital recorder. This would essentially leave me more money to
spend on other goods, like a nicer console. I've been told by you guys
that a good solution can be had for under $1000. Products include:

High end: iZ RADAR systems (fine, that won't be under $1K)
Down the chain: systems from Yamaha, Roland/BOSS, TASCAM, etc.
e.g. TASCAM DA-38, DA-78
Mackie MDR24/96 24-track

Include Alesis HDR24XDR

--
ha

Chris Pickett wrote:

4.1) Digital recorder. This would essentially leave me more money to
spend on other goods, like a nicer console. I've been told by you guys
that a good solution can be had for under $1000. Products include:

High end: iZ RADAR systems (fine, that won't be under $1K)
Down the chain: systems from Yamaha, Roland/BOSS, TASCAM, etc.
e.g. TASCAM DA-38, DA-78
Mackie MDR24/96 24-track


Don't rule out an older RADAR system - I'm sure I've seen them in your
price range.

Cheers.

James.

In article writes:

that's just what's been recommended so far.

Narrrow gage analog recorders are a bit easier to move (in every
sense of the word) and the "on line" crowd are more familiar with
them. I had a TASCAM 80-8 that I did a lot of good work on, but my
2" Ampex was a big step up, both in sound quality and in
"professionalism." People took me more seriously when I could stop
saying "I have a TASCAM recorder."

Tape
cost is moderately important; I don't know if I want to pay for 2" tape
(but would consider it).

How prolific are you? Or more important, how vain are you? Do you feel
that you need to save everything you record because you might like it
some day, or are you disciplined enough to say "that was a turkey,
I'll just record over it."? A half a dozen reels of 2" tape isn't a
bad investment for a project. 30 reels is strictly "major sensitive
artist" stuff.

Only because it [the Ghost] was the only thing I found and looking back in this
newsgroup I found a huge thread talking about how nice it is. No other
reason. I will look at Trident and MCI gear.

Compared to a Mackie, it'll be better in most respects, and that's why
you'll see it as a favorite among those who like to help others spend
their money. There are other good boards in that same class -
Soundtracks has a lot of fans, too. But analog consoles are kind of a
dying breed and some of the better ones have been scrapped to make
rack mounted channel strips, so at any given time when you decide to
look for one, you may not have many choices available for sale.

Okay. It's only that I've heard some things come through Mackie boards
and they gave it a quality I didn't really like; hard to describe since
I don't have much to compare with, I guess a bit dry and lifeless.

I've also heard some very good things coming out of Mackie boards. One
of the reasons why there's a lot of bad Mackie recordings is because
it's an inexpensive board and most of the people who use them don't
have a lot of experience or a lot of other good gear. Another reason
is that it's a little harder to get a great recording out of one
because it IS an inexpensive board and there have been some corners
cut and some design decisions made that orient it toward doing its
best job producing straight ahead rock music.

So, at the other end of the (entry-level) spectrum, I'm considering
limiting myself to a cheap 1/2" 8-track like a Tascam 38 or Otari 5050
MK-III 8, and a simple 8-channel mixer to go with it. This would force
me to use the crap stereo outs on the drum machine and synthesizer, but
at the same time give me something rather simple to cut my teeth on, as
it were.

That's actually not a bad approach. It also forces you to make
decisions as you go along, which gives you a better picture of how the
project will end up as you're working on it.

My only real fear is that if I happened to make something I liked, I
don't know if I could go and "make it better" at a later date

If you like it, why worry about making it better? Why not just do
something new that IS better?

The stereo outputs aren't
_that_ crap, but you can imagine that onboard mixers are worse than
external mixers.

Don't be too sure about that. When they only have to do one thing,
they can do it pretty well.

A lot of people talk about how old
studio gear is now available for a fraction of the original price, and
that's why I thought it would be enough (I mean, a 1" 8-track Studer A80
Mark II is on eBay right now for $1900 with zero bids, and I thought
that was pretty decent; the "buy-it-now" price is $2900).

This is true, but it doesn't follow for everything. In the days of the
$35,000 Studer, a console to go along with it didn't cost $3,000, it
cost $200,000, and those consoles are now available for $10,000 or
less. One thing that's both good and bad about cheap studio gear is
that some of it tends to hold its value better than expernsive studio
gear.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes:


that's just what's been recommended so far.


Narrrow gage analog recorders are a bit easier to move (in every
sense of the word) and the "on line" crowd are more familiar with
them. I had a TASCAM 80-8 that I did a lot of good work on, but my
2" Ampex was a big step up, both in sound quality and in
"professionalism." People took me more seriously when I could stop
saying "I have a TASCAM recorder."

One consideration is that right now, this is a (fairly serious) hobby
for weeknights and weekends; I don't ever imagine myself having clients
of either the paying or non-paying variety in my apartment, nor am I
pursuing a career in sound engineering. Basically I want to put out
some records that 10+ people like and am totally not expecting to make
any money here (ever, even if I buy gear costing multiple thousands of
dollars); the absolute best scenario would see me break even.

Tape
cost is moderately important; I don't know if I want to pay for 2" tape
(but would consider it).


How prolific are you? Or more important, how vain are you? Do you feel
that you need to save everything you record because you might like it
some day, or are you disciplined enough to say "that was a turkey,
I'll just record over it."? A half a dozen reels of 2" tape isn't a
bad investment for a project. 30 reels is strictly "major sensitive
artist" stuff.

My biggest flaw is that I'm a perfectionist, and it takes many takes for
me to get something "just right". In that respect, I'm thankful for
MIDI, but I'm also rather worried that I might start killing my tape by
recording over it ... and over it ... and over it.

Sorry, I should clarify. I intend to do most of the song-writing and
fooling around using my sequencer, and only go to tape when I feel I
have something that's really "very ready to record". I probably don't
want to sequence keyboard solos (quantization problems) or messing
around with effects (no MIDI on most analog effects), but still, there
won't be a lot of "maybe I could use this" material sitting around. At
this stage, the cost of a good enough tape deck (inc. shipping and
fixing it up) is probably more of a concern than the cost of tape.

So, at the other end of the (entry-level) spectrum, I'm considering
limiting myself to a cheap 1/2" 8-track like a Tascam 38 or Otari 5050
MK-III 8, and a simple 8-channel mixer to go with it. This would force
me to use the crap stereo outs on the drum machine and synthesizer, but
at the same time give me something rather simple to cut my teeth on, as
it were.


That's actually not a bad approach. It also forces you to make
decisions as you go along, which gives you a better picture of how the
project will end up as you're working on it.

I've always liked working with limited resources, it's somewhat of a
challenge, unless it's at the point where I'm banging my head on the
wall (which is the point I've reached with computer audio, and again,
those feel more like infinite resources to me).

My only real fear is that if I happened to make something I liked, I
don't know if I could go and "make it better" at a later date


If you like it, why worry about making it better? Why not just do
something new that IS better?

Yeah, okay, fair enough.

The stereo outputs aren't
_that_ crap, but you can imagine that onboard mixers are worse than
external mixers.


Don't be too sure about that. When they only have to do one thing,
they can do it pretty well.

Well, the onboard thing on the Alesis certainly sucks at panning, and if
you overload the mixer it sounds like shoe. The drums on the JoMoX are
positioned within the stereo field on the stereo outs; I probably don't
always want their opinion of where my drums should be. But it's not the
end of the world.

In the days of the
$35,000 Studer, a console to go along with it didn't cost $3,000, it
cost $200,000, and those consoles are now available for $10,000 or
less. One thing that's both good and bad about cheap studio gear is
that some of it tends to hold its value better than expernsive studio
gear.

On a related note, I've always had the (perhaps misguided) opinion that
the middle range of stuff just isn't really worth it in terms of what
you get for your dollar. It seems that for now I can only afford low or
middle end gear from this discussion, and so will take my ass to a
studio if I want high -- at least I'll have a better idea of what I want
when I get there. God, that just divided a whole bunch of people's
lives into three nice little categories ...

Chris

In article writes:

One consideration is that right now, this is a (fairly serious) hobby
for weeknights and weekends; I don't ever imagine myself having clients
of either the paying or non-paying variety in my apartment, nor am I
pursuing a career in sound engineering. Basically I want to put out
some records that 10+ people like and am totally not expecting to make
any money here

In that case, your choice of a small format recorder will be fine. But
understand that while your music may be cool, and appreciated by 10+
people, you won't turn out recordings that sound the same as
commercial CDs. This may not be a concern to you (your listeners won't
complain) but it's a common concern of just about everyone who uses
"professional quality" and "in my home" in the same message.

My biggest flaw is that I'm a perfectionist, and it takes many takes for
me to get something "just right". In that respect, I'm thankful for
MIDI, but I'm also rather worried that I might start killing my tape by
recording over it ... and over it ... and over it.

Tape is remarkably robust, particularly full width tape. But these
days the way that perfectionists tend to work is on a computer
workstation, recording a part over and over, and assembling the "just
right" parts of each take into a complete take. Some people find that
this level of perfection makes for lifeless recordings (and it often
does) - it depends on the form of music. Some kinds of music are
really only acceptable if perfect rhythmically, with perfect pitch and
volume control. Other forms of music are successful because of natural
freedom of rhythm and dynamics, and you might record a part many times
to get that feeling just right.

Well, the onboard thing on the Alesis certainly sucks at panning, and if
you overload the mixer it sounds like shoe.

Panning isn't as convenient as turning a knob until the phantom image
appears where you want it, but if there's a slider, or even a number
you can enter, you can control panning. Internal levels are a problem
wiht any mixer, but they do tend to be more of a problem with an
integral mixer because you can't really monitor what's going into it.
But this is just a matter of learning your tools.

The drums on the JoMoX are
positioned within the stereo field on the stereo outs; I probably don't
always want their opinion of where my drums should be.

There's no way to change the panning? Some really basic drum machines
have fixed panning, generally based on a traditional drum kit, but I
thought the JoMoX was a really flexible system.

On a related note, I've always had the (perhaps misguided) opinion that
the middle range of stuff just isn't really worth it in terms of what
you get for your dollar.

It depends on what you consider "middle range." If a Neve or an API
(orignal new prices) is a top range console ($200K) and a TASCAM is a
low range console ($3500 for a pretty good sized 3700), then a $60K
Sony or MCI or a $20K Soundcraft TS24 would be considered "middle
range" and they were indeed pretty good buys. There's of course a
difference in sound, but there's a difference in sound between any
consoles. The point is that many mid-range studios flourished in the
'90's and '90's with "mid range" consoles. Those studios are now
either totally out of business or have moved to ProTools, so the
consoles are available for little money. But they're physically large,
not really suitable for the typical hobbyist in an apartment.

TASCAM consoles always had a problem with EMI, which is much worse
today with cell phones, cordless phones, wireless networks in the
home, computers, and such that they didn't have to contend with when
the consoles were initially designed. Mackie came along later and
(whether through concern for EMI, concern for ruggedness, or just dumb
luck) are pretty clean in this respect. A Ghost is like a better
Mackie 8-bus, but it's not really a "lesser MCI." But it's possible to
make a decent recording with any of those lower priced consoles. It's
just that it sometimes takes more time and trimming before you get it
right. This is frustrating to some people and leads to the "no
headroom" or "useless EQ" complaints. But a lot of great sounding
records were made with consoles with less.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers wrote:

In that case, your choice of a small format recorder will be fine. But
understand that while your music may be cool, and appreciated by 10+
people, you won't turn out recordings that sound the same as
commercial CDs. This may not be a concern to you (your listeners won't
complain) but it's a common concern of just about everyone who uses
"professional quality" and "in my home" in the same message.

I do actually want more than just 10 people to like it. I think what I
meant more was, the number one priority is myself liking it.

If you mean CD's with the mastering job typical of top 40 radio songs
these days, I certainly don't want that. But I appreciate that it will
be hard to get studio-quality sound at home. I would prefer not to make
CD's at all, but rather focus on high-grade vinyl -- there's certainly
enough of a market to move 1000 copies of a good EP in North America.
Basically, I would be happy to produce something that I can send to the
mastering house / pressing plant without them totally screwing up or
being unable to work with the recording and get some nice records back.

Anyway, as I said elsewhere, I'm now thinking about 1" 8-tracks (as
opposed to 1" 16-tracks, which still aren't full-width).

Tape is remarkably robust, particularly full width tape. But these
days the way that perfectionists tend to work is on a computer
workstation, recording a part over and over, and assembling the "just
right" parts of each take into a complete take. Some people find that
this level of perfection makes for lifeless recordings (and it often
does) - it depends on the form of music. Some kinds of music are
really only acceptable if perfect rhythmically, with perfect pitch and
volume control. Other forms of music are successful because of natural
freedom of rhythm and dynamics, and you might record a part many times
to get that feeling just right.

The lifelessness and lack of good mistakes or happy accidents imposed by
excessive editing and the temptation to get sucked into that is a big
part of the reason I want to use computers as little as possible. I
guess that's not necessarily the best substitute for achieving true
self-discipline.

There's no way to change the panning? Some really basic drum machines
have fixed panning, generally based on a traditional drum kit, but I
thought the JoMoX was a really flexible system.

No, it's really fixed. If you want to pan, use the individual outs. If
I did the drums all on my Andromeda, it wouldn't be a problem, but it's
not as easy to get good, usable sounds. I'm thinking about replacing
the thing with it's ancestors, the Roland TR-808, TR-909, and CR-78.
But that's another $2-3K.

On a related note, I've always had the (perhaps misguided) opinion that
the middle range of stuff just isn't really worth it in terms of what
you get for your dollar.


It depends on what you consider "middle range." If a Neve or an API
(orignal new prices) is a top range console ($200K) and a TASCAM is a
low range console ($3500 for a pretty good sized 3700), then a $60K
Sony or MCI or a $20K Soundcraft TS24 would be considered "middle
range" and they were indeed pretty good buys. There's of course a
difference in sound, but there's a difference in sound between any
consoles. The point is that many mid-range studios flourished in the
'90's and '90's with "mid range" consoles. Those studios are now
either totally out of business or have moved to ProTools, so the
consoles are available for little money. But they're physically large,
not really suitable for the typical hobbyist in an apartment.

TASCAM consoles always had a problem with EMI, which is much worse
today with cell phones, cordless phones, wireless networks in the
home, computers, and such that they didn't have to contend with when
the consoles were initially designed. Mackie came along later and
(whether through concern for EMI, concern for ruggedness, or just dumb
luck) are pretty clean in this respect. A Ghost is like a better
Mackie 8-bus, but it's not really a "lesser MCI." But it's possible to
make a decent recording with any of those lower priced consoles. It's
just that it sometimes takes more time and trimming before you get it
right. This is frustrating to some people and leads to the "no
headroom" or "useless EQ" complaints. But a lot of great sounding
records were made with consoles with less.

It would seem my theory doesn't scale that well to non-consumer goods.

There are a couple consoles here

http://blevinsaudioexchange.com/consoles.html#SNDWKSHP

at around $3000 that I could probably afford, a 24-channel MCI and two
28-channel Sound Workshops, but that's starting to push what I'm
prepared to pay at this point; they're also quite big (64" and 87"). I
think I'm gonna have to start looking around in Montreal. I'm likely
leaving this city in 2-3 years, and also might be doing some summer
internships in Toronto in the meantime, which means moderate portability
is also an issue.

Cheers,
Chris

In article writes:

There are a couple consoles here
http://blevinsaudioexchange.com/consoles.html#SNDWKSHP

Randy Blevins is one of the best people you can buy a console from,
particularly an MCI. That's his specialty and you'll know exactly what
you're getting. If you pay for it, you can get one from him that's
been completely gone over and better than new, or you can buy one that
he's checked out and can tell you exactly what shape it's in and
what's not up to par so you can either fix it, have him fix it, or
live with it.

I'm likely
leaving this city in 2-3 years, and also might be doing some summer
internships in Toronto in the meantime, which means moderate portability
is also an issue.

Well, having helped Harvey Gerst install an MCI console (that he,
who's perfectly capable of rebuilding a console himself, bought it
ready to go from Blevins) I can attest to the fact that it's not
portable. Or you can ask any of the other ten people who helped get it
off the truck and into the control room.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Lines: 24
Message-ID:
X-Complaints-To:
X-Abuse-Info: Please forward a copy of all headers for proper handling
X-Trace: ofjmidbaofeaohdodbdpiflmbcekedmfhojhikkbagflhcboed gaklkimehhfibipeiphjjefhhdbmabdemllgdmnpdojhkdobcm cjkhbgbpoobganjkbododdmacnhfkonaokkkilcakfabdffkcp fhmmmphocn
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:13:02 EST
Organization: BellSouth Internet Group
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 05:13:02 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.audio.pro:1127488


CHris wrote:
want to pan, use the individual outs. If I did the drums all on my
Andromeda, it wouldn't be a problem, but it's not as easy to get
good, usable sounds. I'm thinking about replacing the thing with
it's ancestors, the Roland TR-808, TR-909, and CR-78. But that's
another $2-3K.
I always liked the Alesis d-4 for a drum module. Imho wider variety
of sounds and 8 individual outs. THere's been one for sale here in
the NEw ORleans paper for a picture of MR. Franklin recently. Had I
the spare Ben I would've bought it for my collection just for a spare
cause I like that drum module. NOt into hip hop but into jazz
straight ahead rock blues and folk music however, so the 808 etc.
isn't quite my thing.



Richard Webb,
Electric SPider Productions, New Orleans, La.
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--

The lifelessness and lack of good mistakes or happy accidents imposed by
excessive editing and the temptation to get sucked into that is a big
part of the reason I want to use computers as little as possible. I
guess that's not necessarily the best substitute for achieving true
self-discipline.

Exactly. You can use as much or as little of the editinig capabilities of a
DAW as you would like. Just because you have a Ferrari doesn't mean you have
you drive 150MPH. It'll go just as slow as a 1979 Chevy Monza.

You mention that 2-3K will opush the limit of what you're willing to spend for
an analog console. If you want to even begin to exploit the possibility of a
large format analog board you'll need to spend almost that much on harnessing,
assuming it comes with a comprehensive patchbay. Without a patchbay, double
that amount.

I wont post on this thread again. You're obviously free to do what yuou want.
But with your relatively tiny budget, I would advise strongly against trying to
buy a large format console and a full track width tape deck. Thee ones you'll
be able to afford (after paying for the shipping and harnessing) are bound to
be old, tired pieces in need of serious maintenance. Nothing impedes music
making lkike equipment failure. If you think KLEZ can slow you down, wait til
you meet MOLEX.


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

Chris Pickett wrote:

Mike Rivers wrote:

In that case, your choice of a small format recorder will be fine. But
understand that while your music may be cool, and appreciated by 10+
people, you won't turn out recordings that sound the same as
commercial CDs. This may not be a concern to you (your listeners won't
complain) but it's a common concern of just about everyone who uses
"professional quality" and "in my home" in the same message.

I do actually want more than just 10 people to like it. I think what I
meant more was, the number one priority is myself liking it.

If you mean CD's with the mastering job typical of top 40 radio songs
these days, I certainly don't want that. But I appreciate that it will
be hard to get studio-quality sound at home. I would prefer not to make
CD's at all, but rather focus on high-grade vinyl -- there's certainly
enough of a market to move 1000 copies of a good EP in North America.
Basically, I would be happy to produce something that I can send to the
mastering house / pressing plant without them totally screwing up or
being unable to work with the recording and get some nice records back.

Anyway, as I said elsewhere, I'm now thinking about 1" 8-tracks (as
opposed to 1" 16-tracks, which still aren't full-width).


Getting studio quality is very much a matter of attention to what counts
(and knowing what doesn't count). Given the right circumstances you can
produce something good enough to sell 1000 copies on a narrow format
machine - there have been plenty of releases recorded on my 1/4" 8 track
and 1/2" 16 track. However, my 2" 16 track has a certain solid sound to
it which the engineer in me loves but I'm still not sure whether the end
result is actually much better than the results I get from the narrow
formats. Or maybe I'm just not pushing the large format hard enough.

Cheers.

James.