Hi,

I recently purchased an Otari MX5050 MKIII-8 (8 track half inch), which came
with no manuals or test tape. Had a look through the rec.audio.pro archives
via Google, and also at the FAQ, and found a few useful bits and bobs.

I've bought two reels of Quantegy 456-23711 tape. I believe my next port of
call is to acquire a MRL tape with test tones, to try to get the machine
aligned, but I'm somewhat foxed by the different types available. Can
anyone offer some advice, without getting too technical?

I intend to keep using the 456 tape. More than likely will send a fair
amount of level to it, often going into tape compression territory. Won't
be using noise reduction of any kind.

Another point: I was wondering if moving the machine about would knock it
out of alignment or something, as I don't have a set place for it - do you
have to be very gentle when moving them, or am I alright moving it from
storage to an operating surface for use? I was using a Fostex R8 before,
which was obviously a lot more portable.



Thanks,


Richard
(Scotland)

Richard W. Rinn wrote:

I recently purchased an Otari MX5050 MKIII-8 (8 track half inch), which came
with no manuals or test tape. Had a look through the rec.audio.pro archives
via Google, and also at the FAQ, and found a few useful bits and bobs.

I've bought two reels of Quantegy 456-23711 tape. I believe my next port of
call is to acquire a MRL tape with test tones, to try to get the machine
aligned, but I'm somewhat foxed by the different types available. Can
anyone offer some advice, without getting too technical?

Call them up and ask them. I suggest getting the NAB EQ version for
250 nW/m, although I personally tend to buy the 185 nW/m ones since I often
run at lower levels.

I intend to keep using the 456 tape. More than likely will send a fair
amount of level to it, often going into tape compression territory. Won't
be using noise reduction of any kind.

That's fine.

Another point: I was wondering if moving the machine about would knock it
out of alignment or something, as I don't have a set place for it - do you
have to be very gentle when moving them, or am I alright moving it from
storage to an operating surface for use? I was using a Fostex R8 before,
which was obviously a lot more portable.

Nahh, just realign after moving. With the tape machine in the truck, I
realign every time we move the thing. With a 2-track machine you can do it
in five minutes once you get the hang of it.
--scott


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

Richard W. Rinn wrote:

I recently purchased an Otari MX5050 MKIII-8 (8 track half inch), which came
with no manuals or test tape. Had a look through the rec.audio.pro archives
via Google, and also at the FAQ, and found a few useful bits and bobs.

I've bought two reels of Quantegy 456-23711 tape. I believe my next port of
call is to acquire a MRL tape with test tones, to try to get the machine
aligned, but I'm somewhat foxed by the different types available. Can
anyone offer some advice, without getting too technical?

Call them up and ask them. I suggest getting the NAB EQ version for
250 nW/m, although I personally tend to buy the 185 nW/m ones since I often
run at lower levels.

I intend to keep using the 456 tape. More than likely will send a fair
amount of level to it, often going into tape compression territory. Won't
be using noise reduction of any kind.

That's fine.

Another point: I was wondering if moving the machine about would knock it
out of alignment or something, as I don't have a set place for it - do you
have to be very gentle when moving them, or am I alright moving it from
storage to an operating surface for use? I was using a Fostex R8 before,
which was obviously a lot more portable.

Nahh, just realign after moving. With the tape machine in the truck, I
realign every time we move the thing. With a 2-track machine you can do it
in five minutes once you get the hang of it.
--scott


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

In article writes:

I've bought two reels of Quantegy 456-23711 tape. I believe my next port of
call is to acquire a MRL tape with test tones, to try to get the machine
aligned, but I'm somewhat foxed by the different types available.

You mean which MRL calibartaion tape to get? Call MRL and ask Jay
McKnight. He knows more about this than anybody. There's an article on
the MRL web page (http://home.flash.net/~mrltapes/) that explains the
use of calibration tapes and how to choose one. Read it first. There
may be some terms you don't understand, but Jay will help you figure
out which tape is correct for you.

Another point: I was wondering if moving the machine about would knock it
out of alignment or something

They're pretty sturdy, but once you have the tools, it takes only a
few minutes to check the alignment, both the head (mechanical) and
electronic alignment.

In additon to the test tape, you'll also need a generator and an AC
voltmeter that's reasonably accurate over the audio frequency range.
An oscilloscope is very helpful, in fact almost essential, for
accurate recorder adjustment. These don't need to be expensive if you
buy surplus, but they're important and you'll need to learn how to use
them.

It would help a lot to find someone local to you who has an analog
recorder and the equipment to maintain it, and bring your recorder to
him or her to walk you through the procedure. There's probably an
article on line somewhere explaining the basic principles of recorder
alignment. Most of the adjustments are accessable from the outside on
an Otari recorder and are clearly labeled so you can get away without
a manual if you can't find one, but they're around.



--
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

In article writes:

I've bought two reels of Quantegy 456-23711 tape. I believe my next port of
call is to acquire a MRL tape with test tones, to try to get the machine
aligned, but I'm somewhat foxed by the different types available.

You mean which MRL calibartaion tape to get? Call MRL and ask Jay
McKnight. He knows more about this than anybody. There's an article on
the MRL web page (http://home.flash.net/~mrltapes/) that explains the
use of calibration tapes and how to choose one. Read it first. There
may be some terms you don't understand, but Jay will help you figure
out which tape is correct for you.

Another point: I was wondering if moving the machine about would knock it
out of alignment or something

They're pretty sturdy, but once you have the tools, it takes only a
few minutes to check the alignment, both the head (mechanical) and
electronic alignment.

In additon to the test tape, you'll also need a generator and an AC
voltmeter that's reasonably accurate over the audio frequency range.
An oscilloscope is very helpful, in fact almost essential, for
accurate recorder adjustment. These don't need to be expensive if you
buy surplus, but they're important and you'll need to learn how to use
them.

It would help a lot to find someone local to you who has an analog
recorder and the equipment to maintain it, and bring your recorder to
him or her to walk you through the procedure. There's probably an
article on line somewhere explaining the basic principles of recorder
alignment. Most of the adjustments are accessable from the outside on
an Otari recorder and are clearly labeled so you can get away without
a manual if you can't find one, but they're around.



--
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

Thanks for the info guys. I'll give MRL a call.

I already did the local studio thing Mike suggested (we just mixed and
mastered an album there and the guy was super helpful and interested in what
we were doing), and got the machine set up to the best of our abilities
without having a test tones reel, but I'd like to make sure it's right and
be able to keep it right myself.

The Otari has a 1K and 10K tone generator built in, is this what you mean by
needing a generator, Mike?

I'm sure our organ player, who fixes amps and stuff, has a voltmeter. He
rewired the inputs and outputs (unbalanced XLR) on the Otari last night, as
they were apparently wired with a different pin hot to what both he and the
studio guy expected. He may even have an oscilloscope (famous last words).

The studio guy was kind of surprised that there were level knobs on the
unit, as usually this is done at the preamp/mixer stage, and the recorder is
fixed (he said). We found that when the SRL (any idea what this stands for?
Standard Reference/Recording Level?!) button is depressed, the level is
fixed. When it's out, the knob is active and you can gain or attenuate the
signal.

Also, on the rear there was a switch marked H and L to do with the inputs
(can't remember the exact legend), which when switched to L made the signal
stronger than when switched to H. Would this be impedance, or?!

Before we found out that the inputs were unbalanced, I thought I would have
to ditch my Fostex 812 mixer (the 12:8 companion to my previous Fostex R8 8
track), and was looking into buying dedicated preamps. I was wondering if
most dedicated preamps for balanced signals only, as I may still like to
explore this avenue in time?



Thanks again,



Richard.
(Scotland)

Thanks for the info guys. I'll give MRL a call.

I already did the local studio thing Mike suggested (we just mixed and
mastered an album there and the guy was super helpful and interested in what
we were doing), and got the machine set up to the best of our abilities
without having a test tones reel, but I'd like to make sure it's right and
be able to keep it right myself.

The Otari has a 1K and 10K tone generator built in, is this what you mean by
needing a generator, Mike?

I'm sure our organ player, who fixes amps and stuff, has a voltmeter. He
rewired the inputs and outputs (unbalanced XLR) on the Otari last night, as
they were apparently wired with a different pin hot to what both he and the
studio guy expected. He may even have an oscilloscope (famous last words).

The studio guy was kind of surprised that there were level knobs on the
unit, as usually this is done at the preamp/mixer stage, and the recorder is
fixed (he said). We found that when the SRL (any idea what this stands for?
Standard Reference/Recording Level?!) button is depressed, the level is
fixed. When it's out, the knob is active and you can gain or attenuate the
signal.

Also, on the rear there was a switch marked H and L to do with the inputs
(can't remember the exact legend), which when switched to L made the signal
stronger than when switched to H. Would this be impedance, or?!

Before we found out that the inputs were unbalanced, I thought I would have
to ditch my Fostex 812 mixer (the 12:8 companion to my previous Fostex R8 8
track), and was looking into buying dedicated preamps. I was wondering if
most dedicated preamps for balanced signals only, as I may still like to
explore this avenue in time?



Thanks again,



Richard.
(Scotland)

"Richard W. Rinn" wrote:

Thanks for the info guys. I'll give MRL a call.

Like everyone else said, they are super nice. Just tell them what you
have--they know that machine and have a pretty strong preference for what
MRL tape it wants--and don't worry about it.



The Otari has a 1K and 10K tone generator built in, is this what you mean
by
needing a generator, Mike?

You should probably still have an external generator. But it's probably
won't stop you from getting started with it.

snip

The studio guy was kind of surprised that there were level knobs on the
unit, as usually this is done at the preamp/mixer stage, and the recorder
is
fixed (he said). We found that when the SRL (any idea what this stands
for?
Standard Reference/Recording Level?!) button is depressed, the level is
fixed. When it's out, the knob is active and you can gain or attenuate
the
signal.

SRL stands for "Standard Reference Level". The level knobs can actually be
handy in situations where you can't set the ideal level elsewhere.


Also, on the rear there was a switch marked H and L to do with the inputs
(can't remember the exact legend), which when switched to L made the
signal
stronger than when switched to H. Would this be impedance, or?!

The "H" is for interfacing with +4dbv ("pro") referenced gear. The "L" is
for interfacing with -10dbU (consumer) levels such as your Fostex mixer. If
you set it wrong, you'll know, because you'll either be fighting to get
enough gain, or to lower the gain enough to avoid clipping the input.


Before we found out that the inputs were unbalanced, I thought I would
have
to ditch my Fostex 812 mixer (the 12:8 companion to my previous Fostex R8
8
track), and was looking into buying dedicated preamps. I was wondering if
most dedicated preamps for balanced signals only, as I may still like to
explore this avenue in time?

Generally there should not be a problem using balanced gear with this
machine. When you're putting together the cords to connect your balanced box
to the recording, try either leaving pin 3 floating, or connect pin 3 to
ground and you should be fine. If you hadn't rewired the inputs, you'd do
the same, but with pin 2.

Also, if you're not planning on swapping tapes much, and you are mostly
experimenting on yourself, and it sounds okay don't worry too much about
having all the exact right tools before you starting making some recordings.
Unless you're actually going for making masters (in which case you might
want to rethink the mixer) whatever you do wrong will probably either not be
a big deal, or will be pretty obvious right away (why is the sound on the
outside tracks so muffled? Hmmmm).

Good luck.

-jw

"Richard W. Rinn" wrote:

Thanks for the info guys. I'll give MRL a call.

Like everyone else said, they are super nice. Just tell them what you
have--they know that machine and have a pretty strong preference for what
MRL tape it wants--and don't worry about it.



The Otari has a 1K and 10K tone generator built in, is this what you mean
by
needing a generator, Mike?

You should probably still have an external generator. But it's probably
won't stop you from getting started with it.

snip

The studio guy was kind of surprised that there were level knobs on the
unit, as usually this is done at the preamp/mixer stage, and the recorder
is
fixed (he said). We found that when the SRL (any idea what this stands
for?
Standard Reference/Recording Level?!) button is depressed, the level is
fixed. When it's out, the knob is active and you can gain or attenuate
the
signal.

SRL stands for "Standard Reference Level". The level knobs can actually be
handy in situations where you can't set the ideal level elsewhere.


Also, on the rear there was a switch marked H and L to do with the inputs
(can't remember the exact legend), which when switched to L made the
signal
stronger than when switched to H. Would this be impedance, or?!

The "H" is for interfacing with +4dbv ("pro") referenced gear. The "L" is
for interfacing with -10dbU (consumer) levels such as your Fostex mixer. If
you set it wrong, you'll know, because you'll either be fighting to get
enough gain, or to lower the gain enough to avoid clipping the input.


Before we found out that the inputs were unbalanced, I thought I would
have
to ditch my Fostex 812 mixer (the 12:8 companion to my previous Fostex R8
8
track), and was looking into buying dedicated preamps. I was wondering if
most dedicated preamps for balanced signals only, as I may still like to
explore this avenue in time?

Generally there should not be a problem using balanced gear with this
machine. When you're putting together the cords to connect your balanced box
to the recording, try either leaving pin 3 floating, or connect pin 3 to
ground and you should be fine. If you hadn't rewired the inputs, you'd do
the same, but with pin 2.

Also, if you're not planning on swapping tapes much, and you are mostly
experimenting on yourself, and it sounds okay don't worry too much about
having all the exact right tools before you starting making some recordings.
Unless you're actually going for making masters (in which case you might
want to rethink the mixer) whatever you do wrong will probably either not be
a big deal, or will be pretty obvious right away (why is the sound on the
outside tracks so muffled? Hmmmm).

Good luck.

-jw

In article writes:

The Otari has a 1K and 10K tone generator built in, is this what you mean by
needing a generator, Mike?

That's sufficient to touch it up, but you should have a generator
capable of covering the full audio range (20 Hz to 20 kHz) to see
what's happening at other frequencies.

The studio guy was kind of surprised that there were level knobs on the
unit, as usually this is done at the preamp/mixer stage, and the recorder is
fixed (he said).

I think there's a button on there that sets the input level (and
output level too) to the calibrated level (other Otari models have
this) but it's handy to have variable input level, particularly in the
digital age. A lot of digital gear has a peak output level higher than
the standard calibration for an analog tape deck and it's nice to be
able to turn it down. And when feeding it from a lower level source,
it's nice to be able to turn it up.

We found that when the SRL (any idea what this stands for?
Standard Reference/Recording Level?!) button is depressed, the level is
fixed. When it's out, the knob is active and you can gain or attenuate the
signal.

Yup, that's it.

Also, on the rear there was a switch marked H and L to do with the inputs
(can't remember the exact legend), which when switched to L made the signal
stronger than when switched to H. Would this be impedance, or?!

It's to change the reference fluxivity level. If you want to record
the tape "hotter", switch to H and it will require more signal to get
the meter up to 0 VU, which in turn puts more signal on the tape.

Before we found out that the inputs were unbalanced, I thought I would have
to ditch my Fostex 812 mixer

There are a few bazillion versions of the MX-5050. Some are balanced,
some are unbalanced. But I recall what you discovered, that the
unbalanced version is wired with the signal on Pin 3 and Pin 2 is
grounded. So there's still signal between pins 2 and 3 (so a balanced
input will see signal) but if you're going into somehing unbalanced
with the more conventional "pin 2 hot" wiring, you'll be connecting
the recorer's ground to your input - not good (but very quiet).


--
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

In article writes:

The Otari has a 1K and 10K tone generator built in, is this what you mean by
needing a generator, Mike?

That's sufficient to touch it up, but you should have a generator
capable of covering the full audio range (20 Hz to 20 kHz) to see
what's happening at other frequencies.

The studio guy was kind of surprised that there were level knobs on the
unit, as usually this is done at the preamp/mixer stage, and the recorder is
fixed (he said).

I think there's a button on there that sets the input level (and
output level too) to the calibrated level (other Otari models have
this) but it's handy to have variable input level, particularly in the
digital age. A lot of digital gear has a peak output level higher than
the standard calibration for an analog tape deck and it's nice to be
able to turn it down. And when feeding it from a lower level source,
it's nice to be able to turn it up.

We found that when the SRL (any idea what this stands for?
Standard Reference/Recording Level?!) button is depressed, the level is
fixed. When it's out, the knob is active and you can gain or attenuate the
signal.

Yup, that's it.

Also, on the rear there was a switch marked H and L to do with the inputs
(can't remember the exact legend), which when switched to L made the signal
stronger than when switched to H. Would this be impedance, or?!

It's to change the reference fluxivity level. If you want to record
the tape "hotter", switch to H and it will require more signal to get
the meter up to 0 VU, which in turn puts more signal on the tape.

Before we found out that the inputs were unbalanced, I thought I would have
to ditch my Fostex 812 mixer

There are a few bazillion versions of the MX-5050. Some are balanced,
some are unbalanced. But I recall what you discovered, that the
unbalanced version is wired with the signal on Pin 3 and Pin 2 is
grounded. So there's still signal between pins 2 and 3 (so a balanced
input will see signal) but if you're going into somehing unbalanced
with the more conventional "pin 2 hot" wiring, you'll be connecting
the recorer's ground to your input - not good (but very quiet).


--
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:
That's sufficient to touch it up, but you should have a generator
capable of covering the full audio range (20 Hz to 20 kHz) to see
what's happening at other frequencies.

you'll especially want to know what's going on in the low end to figure
out where you want the bump to sit.

I think there's a button on there that sets the input level (and
output level too) to the calibrated level (other Otari models have
this)

that's the "SRL" button. and of course it's actually adjustable via a
pot on the back panel.

Also, on the rear there was a switch marked H and L to do with the
inputs (can't remember the exact legend), which when switched to L
made the signal stronger than when switched to H. Would this be
impedance, or?!

It's to change the reference fluxivity level. If you want to record
the tape "hotter", switch to H and it will require more signal to get
the meter up to 0 VU, which in turn puts more signal on the tape.

I'm not sure what deck Mike is thinking about, but on the MX5050mkIII
the H/L switches changes the input sensitivity between +4 and -8 dBu.
(no, that's not a typo. the manual really does specify -8 dBu.)

Before we found out that the inputs were unbalanced, I thought I
would have to ditch my Fostex 812 mixer

There are a few bazillion versions of the MX-5050. Some are balanced,
some are unbalanced. But I recall what you discovered, that the
unbalanced version is wired with the signal on Pin 3 and Pin 2 is
grounded. So there's still signal between pins 2 and 3 (so a balanced
input will see signal) but if you're going into somehing unbalanced
with the more conventional "pin 2 hot" wiring, you'll be connecting
the recorer's ground to your input - not good (but very quiet).

the pin 3 hot thing confused the heck out of me when I first got my
MX5050mkIII. but I wired up some pin-3 hot cables and it works fine.

be aware that your unit may be IEC, and not NAB. I originally aligned
my unit to NAB and while you can align the playback heads for a flat
response, recording and playback is actually a lot flatter when the unit
is calibrated to IEC. I have some old response graphs at
http://www.poofygoof.com/~agrier/music/gear/sweeps that illustrate the
differences. (I've since gotten an actual IEC tape; I should probably
put some more graphs up.)

Jay McKnight at MRL told me that early Otari machines used NAB but
somewhere along the line they switched to IEC. the second two digits in
the serial number of your MX5050mkIII indicate the year of manufacture.
mine is from 1984, and I assume that if yours is newer, it would be IEC
as well.

as for as tape, I've used both 456 and 406 with success, set for +3
(250nW/M). a couple channels in my unit don't seem to have enough bias
to hit +6. I get a tiny bit of bleed between track 7 and a SMPTE stripe
on track 8 at my present levels, and I don't really mind the noise
floor, so I'm in no big hurry to fix the issue.

as a counterpoint, an aquaintance of mine used (and probably still uses)
GP9 on his MX5050mkIII. I can only assume his meters were calibrated
for 0VU = +3 or +6, since he appeared to slam his levels. he liked it
though, and from what I've heard on their albums, it works.
--
Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." |
"someday the industry will have throbbing frontal lobes and will be able
to write provably correct software. also, I want a pony." -- Zach Brown

Mike Rivers wrote:
That's sufficient to touch it up, but you should have a generator
capable of covering the full audio range (20 Hz to 20 kHz) to see
what's happening at other frequencies.

you'll especially want to know what's going on in the low end to figure
out where you want the bump to sit.

I think there's a button on there that sets the input level (and
output level too) to the calibrated level (other Otari models have
this)

that's the "SRL" button. and of course it's actually adjustable via a
pot on the back panel.

Also, on the rear there was a switch marked H and L to do with the
inputs (can't remember the exact legend), which when switched to L
made the signal stronger than when switched to H. Would this be
impedance, or?!

It's to change the reference fluxivity level. If you want to record
the tape "hotter", switch to H and it will require more signal to get
the meter up to 0 VU, which in turn puts more signal on the tape.

I'm not sure what deck Mike is thinking about, but on the MX5050mkIII
the H/L switches changes the input sensitivity between +4 and -8 dBu.
(no, that's not a typo. the manual really does specify -8 dBu.)

Before we found out that the inputs were unbalanced, I thought I
would have to ditch my Fostex 812 mixer

There are a few bazillion versions of the MX-5050. Some are balanced,
some are unbalanced. But I recall what you discovered, that the
unbalanced version is wired with the signal on Pin 3 and Pin 2 is
grounded. So there's still signal between pins 2 and 3 (so a balanced
input will see signal) but if you're going into somehing unbalanced
with the more conventional "pin 2 hot" wiring, you'll be connecting
the recorer's ground to your input - not good (but very quiet).

the pin 3 hot thing confused the heck out of me when I first got my
MX5050mkIII. but I wired up some pin-3 hot cables and it works fine.

be aware that your unit may be IEC, and not NAB. I originally aligned
my unit to NAB and while you can align the playback heads for a flat
response, recording and playback is actually a lot flatter when the unit
is calibrated to IEC. I have some old response graphs at
http://www.poofygoof.com/~agrier/music/gear/sweeps that illustrate the
differences. (I've since gotten an actual IEC tape; I should probably
put some more graphs up.)

Jay McKnight at MRL told me that early Otari machines used NAB but
somewhere along the line they switched to IEC. the second two digits in
the serial number of your MX5050mkIII indicate the year of manufacture.
mine is from 1984, and I assume that if yours is newer, it would be IEC
as well.

as for as tape, I've used both 456 and 406 with success, set for +3
(250nW/M). a couple channels in my unit don't seem to have enough bias
to hit +6. I get a tiny bit of bleed between track 7 and a SMPTE stripe
on track 8 at my present levels, and I don't really mind the noise
floor, so I'm in no big hurry to fix the issue.

as a counterpoint, an aquaintance of mine used (and probably still uses)
GP9 on his MX5050mkIII. I can only assume his meters were calibrated
for 0VU = +3 or +6, since he appeared to slam his levels. he liked it
though, and from what I've heard on their albums, it works.
--
Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." |
"someday the industry will have throbbing frontal lobes and will be able
to write provably correct software. also, I want a pony." -- Zach Brown

Aaron J. Grier wrote:
you'll especially want to know what's going on in the low end to figure
out where you want the bump to sit.

Mm, that sounds...involved!


that's the "SRL" button. and of course it's actually adjustable via a
pot on the back panel.

Noticed that. What would one set it against/to?


I'm not sure what deck Mike is thinking about, but on the MX5050mkIII
the H/L switches changes the input sensitivity between +4 and -8 dBu.
(no, that's not a typo. the manual really does specify -8 dBu.)

In the local studio, before the XLR's were re-wired, when we tried an SM58
through a V72 preamp straight into the input, it seemed fine. Putting a
signal through his big mixing desk and patchbay however, the signal was
really weak and also distorted. Would this have been more to do with the
pin wiring? I'm sure we tried that switch set to H and L.


be aware that your unit may be IEC, and not NAB. I originally aligned
my unit to NAB and while you can align the playback heads for a flat
response, recording and playback is actually a lot flatter when the unit
is calibrated to IEC. I have some old response graphs at
http://www.poofygoof.com/~agrier/music/gear/sweeps that illustrate the
differences. (I've since gotten an actual IEC tape; I should probably
put some more graphs up.)

I noticed at Studiospares that the 1/2" 456 they were selling had 'NAB' next
to it, and wondered what it was. I didn't buy mine from there, and don't
know if mine's NAB or not (if indeed that's something that applies to the
tape also, like Studiospares' site would suggest).


Jay McKnight at MRL told me that early Otari machines used NAB but
somewhere along the line they switched to IEC. the second two digits in
the serial number of your MX5050mkIII indicate the year of manufacture.
mine is from 1984, and I assume that if yours is newer, it would be IEC
as well.

I'll check it later. So Jay will know from the serial number if it's NAB or
IEC? Or is there a way to find out via the machine?


as for as tape, I've used both 456 and 406 with success, set for +3
(250nW/M). a couple channels in my unit don't seem to have enough bias
to hit +6. I get a tiny bit of bleed between track 7 and a SMPTE stripe
on track 8 at my present levels, and I don't really mind the noise
floor, so I'm in no big hurry to fix the issue.

I'm not sure how much the biasing of the VU's (i.e. setting them to +3 or +6
etc) will bother me, as I would generally only use them to see that the
tracks are getting reasonably compatible levels, and go more by listening to
how it sounds if I'm going hot to tape. The only thing that's caused issues
with this earlier on was when we first recorded the Hammond through the
Leslie, as the 'mean' level was a lot lower than the other channels before
you started getting audible distortion on the oscillating peaks.


as a counterpoint, an aquaintance of mine used (and probably still uses)
GP9 on his MX5050mkIII. I can only assume his meters were calibrated
for 0VU = +3 or +6, since he appeared to slam his levels. he liked it
though, and from what I've heard on their albums, it works.

I really don't know much at all about different brands of tape, or their
effects on the sound and so on. I think I remember reading something
somewhere about thicker tape being less prone to print-through? What's GP9
then?


Thanks,


Richard

Aaron J. Grier wrote:
you'll especially want to know what's going on in the low end to figure
out where you want the bump to sit.

Mm, that sounds...involved!


that's the "SRL" button. and of course it's actually adjustable via a
pot on the back panel.

Noticed that. What would one set it against/to?


I'm not sure what deck Mike is thinking about, but on the MX5050mkIII
the H/L switches changes the input sensitivity between +4 and -8 dBu.
(no, that's not a typo. the manual really does specify -8 dBu.)

In the local studio, before the XLR's were re-wired, when we tried an SM58
through a V72 preamp straight into the input, it seemed fine. Putting a
signal through his big mixing desk and patchbay however, the signal was
really weak and also distorted. Would this have been more to do with the
pin wiring? I'm sure we tried that switch set to H and L.


be aware that your unit may be IEC, and not NAB. I originally aligned
my unit to NAB and while you can align the playback heads for a flat
response, recording and playback is actually a lot flatter when the unit
is calibrated to IEC. I have some old response graphs at
http://www.poofygoof.com/~agrier/music/gear/sweeps that illustrate the
differences. (I've since gotten an actual IEC tape; I should probably
put some more graphs up.)

I noticed at Studiospares that the 1/2" 456 they were selling had 'NAB' next
to it, and wondered what it was. I didn't buy mine from there, and don't
know if mine's NAB or not (if indeed that's something that applies to the
tape also, like Studiospares' site would suggest).


Jay McKnight at MRL told me that early Otari machines used NAB but
somewhere along the line they switched to IEC. the second two digits in
the serial number of your MX5050mkIII indicate the year of manufacture.
mine is from 1984, and I assume that if yours is newer, it would be IEC
as well.

I'll check it later. So Jay will know from the serial number if it's NAB or
IEC? Or is there a way to find out via the machine?


as for as tape, I've used both 456 and 406 with success, set for +3
(250nW/M). a couple channels in my unit don't seem to have enough bias
to hit +6. I get a tiny bit of bleed between track 7 and a SMPTE stripe
on track 8 at my present levels, and I don't really mind the noise
floor, so I'm in no big hurry to fix the issue.

I'm not sure how much the biasing of the VU's (i.e. setting them to +3 or +6
etc) will bother me, as I would generally only use them to see that the
tracks are getting reasonably compatible levels, and go more by listening to
how it sounds if I'm going hot to tape. The only thing that's caused issues
with this earlier on was when we first recorded the Hammond through the
Leslie, as the 'mean' level was a lot lower than the other channels before
you started getting audible distortion on the oscillating peaks.


as a counterpoint, an aquaintance of mine used (and probably still uses)
GP9 on his MX5050mkIII. I can only assume his meters were calibrated
for 0VU = +3 or +6, since he appeared to slam his levels. he liked it
though, and from what I've heard on their albums, it works.

I really don't know much at all about different brands of tape, or their
effects on the sound and so on. I think I remember reading something
somewhere about thicker tape being less prone to print-through? What's GP9
then?


Thanks,


Richard

Mike Rivers wrote:
That's sufficient to touch it up, but you should have a generator
capable of covering the full audio range (20 Hz to 20 kHz) to see
what's happening at other frequencies.

I have a Roland JD800 sitting unused in a cupboard here. That wouldn't be
suitable for use as a tone generator would it?


I think there's a button on there that sets the input level (and
output level too) to the calibrated level (other Otari models have
this) but it's handy to have variable input level, particularly in the
digital age. A lot of digital gear has a peak output level higher than
the standard calibration for an analog tape deck and it's nice to be
able to turn it down. And when feeding it from a lower level source,
it's nice to be able to turn it up.

I guess I'll find out sooner or later if it's useful for me. Generally I'm
just recording my own band, and using one mic per thing (counting the drum
kit as one thing, and the leslie as one thing etc), not using any EQ, just
getting the thing to sound good in the room and then trying to find a
pleasant spot a few feet away from which to mic it. Wouldn't usually use
any processing either until mixing. I imagine if I got to the stage where I
could afford to buy good quality processing stuff, I'd probably move into
recording live to 2 track.




Thanks,



Richard.

Mike Rivers wrote:
That's sufficient to touch it up, but you should have a generator
capable of covering the full audio range (20 Hz to 20 kHz) to see
what's happening at other frequencies.

I have a Roland JD800 sitting unused in a cupboard here. That wouldn't be
suitable for use as a tone generator would it?


I think there's a button on there that sets the input level (and
output level too) to the calibrated level (other Otari models have
this) but it's handy to have variable input level, particularly in the
digital age. A lot of digital gear has a peak output level higher than
the standard calibration for an analog tape deck and it's nice to be
able to turn it down. And when feeding it from a lower level source,
it's nice to be able to turn it up.

I guess I'll find out sooner or later if it's useful for me. Generally I'm
just recording my own band, and using one mic per thing (counting the drum
kit as one thing, and the leslie as one thing etc), not using any EQ, just
getting the thing to sound good in the room and then trying to find a
pleasant spot a few feet away from which to mic it. Wouldn't usually use
any processing either until mixing. I imagine if I got to the stage where I
could afford to buy good quality processing stuff, I'd probably move into
recording live to 2 track.




Thanks,



Richard.

John Washburn wrote: Also, if you're not
planning on swapping tapes much, and you are mostly
experimenting on yourself, and it sounds okay don't worry too much about
having all the exact right tools before you starting making some
recordings.
Unless you're actually going for making masters (in which case you might
want to rethink the mixer) whatever you do wrong will probably either not
be
a big deal, or will be pretty obvious right away (why is the sound on the
outside tracks so muffled? Hmmmm).

Well, I will be recording stuff to be released. Already done an album on
the Fostex R8 with the 812. Just haven't recorded with any other equipment,
so I don't know any better really. If you were using the MX5050 with
the 812 mixer, and wanted to 'move up in the world', what direction would
you go in? To be honest, the mixer is really just used as a preamp for
going to tape, as I don't use EQ or anything at the recording stage...


Thanks,


Richard

John Washburn wrote: Also, if you're not
planning on swapping tapes much, and you are mostly
experimenting on yourself, and it sounds okay don't worry too much about
having all the exact right tools before you starting making some
recordings.
Unless you're actually going for making masters (in which case you might
want to rethink the mixer) whatever you do wrong will probably either not
be
a big deal, or will be pretty obvious right away (why is the sound on the
outside tracks so muffled? Hmmmm).

Well, I will be recording stuff to be released. Already done an album on
the Fostex R8 with the 812. Just haven't recorded with any other equipment,
so I don't know any better really. If you were using the MX5050 with
the 812 mixer, and wanted to 'move up in the world', what direction would
you go in? To be honest, the mixer is really just used as a preamp for
going to tape, as I don't use EQ or anything at the recording stage...


Thanks,


Richard

"Richard W. Rinn" wrote:

Mike Rivers wrote:
That's sufficient to touch it up, but you should have a generator
capable of covering the full audio range (20 Hz to 20 kHz) to see
what's happening at other frequencies.

I have a Roland JD800 sitting unused in a cupboard here. That wouldn't be
suitable for use as a tone generator would it?

I think there's a button on there that sets the input level (and


If you switch off the oscillators and just use the filter with resonance
at maximum then you'll get something approaching a sine wave. The big
problem is that you may not know exactly what frequency you are
generating - you can probably work it out if you can get the oscillator
in tune though.

Since you mention Studiospares in another message, you might want to
check out their catalogue because I seem to remember that they have a
small, cheap signal generator for this purpose. I've used my Juno 6 for
that purpose in the past and I've also used a Denon test CD as a source
of sine waves.

And to answer another question - the NAB in the 456 description refers
to the type of centre hole in the tape reel - NAB hubs are about 3
inches in diameter and are the standard for 10.5 inch reels while cine
hubs are around a quarter inch in diameter and are the standard for 7
inch and smaller reels.

Cheers.

James.

"Richard W. Rinn" wrote:

Mike Rivers wrote:
That's sufficient to touch it up, but you should have a generator
capable of covering the full audio range (20 Hz to 20 kHz) to see
what's happening at other frequencies.

I have a Roland JD800 sitting unused in a cupboard here. That wouldn't be
suitable for use as a tone generator would it?

I think there's a button on there that sets the input level (and


If you switch off the oscillators and just use the filter with resonance
at maximum then you'll get something approaching a sine wave. The big
problem is that you may not know exactly what frequency you are
generating - you can probably work it out if you can get the oscillator
in tune though.

Since you mention Studiospares in another message, you might want to
check out their catalogue because I seem to remember that they have a
small, cheap signal generator for this purpose. I've used my Juno 6 for
that purpose in the past and I've also used a Denon test CD as a source
of sine waves.

And to answer another question - the NAB in the 456 description refers
to the type of centre hole in the tape reel - NAB hubs are about 3
inches in diameter and are the standard for 10.5 inch reels while cine
hubs are around a quarter inch in diameter and are the standard for 7
inch and smaller reels.

Cheers.

James.

In article writes:

It's to change the reference fluxivity level. If you want to record
the tape "hotter", switch to H and it will require more signal to get
the meter up to 0 VU, which in turn puts more signal on the tape.

I'm not sure what deck Mike is thinking about, but on the MX5050mkIII
the H/L switches changes the input sensitivity between +4 and -8 dBu.
(no, that's not a typo. the manual really does specify -8 dBu.)

You've got the manual, so I expect you're right. My MX-55 has a switch
to select between reference fluxivity but now that I think of it, I
believe it has three positions. The machine is out on loan (along with
the manual) so I can't look at it.

As far as the level, -8 dBu is close enough to -10 dBV to not pick
nits, but it's probably confusing to someone who doesn't know that.

be aware that your unit may be IEC, and not NAB. I originally aligned
my unit to NAB and while you can align the playback heads for a flat
response, recording and playback is actually a lot flatter when the unit
is calibrated to IEC.

This is typical of a lot of recorders. Too bad NAB is really the
dominant standard.


--
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

In article writes:

It's to change the reference fluxivity level. If you want to record
the tape "hotter", switch to H and it will require more signal to get
the meter up to 0 VU, which in turn puts more signal on the tape.

I'm not sure what deck Mike is thinking about, but on the MX5050mkIII
the H/L switches changes the input sensitivity between +4 and -8 dBu.
(no, that's not a typo. the manual really does specify -8 dBu.)

You've got the manual, so I expect you're right. My MX-55 has a switch
to select between reference fluxivity but now that I think of it, I
believe it has three positions. The machine is out on loan (along with
the manual) so I can't look at it.

As far as the level, -8 dBu is close enough to -10 dBV to not pick
nits, but it's probably confusing to someone who doesn't know that.

be aware that your unit may be IEC, and not NAB. I originally aligned
my unit to NAB and while you can align the playback heads for a flat
response, recording and playback is actually a lot flatter when the unit
is calibrated to IEC.

This is typical of a lot of recorders. Too bad NAB is really the
dominant standard.


--
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

In article writes:

you'll especially want to know what's going on in the low end to figure
out where you want the bump to sit.

Mm, that sounds...involved!

It's another step in alignment. Not a big deal. I wouldn't try to use
a music synthesizer as a signal generator, but if you have a PC with a
sound card, there's a cute Flash program that simulates the NTI
Minirator on the company's web site http://www.nt-instruments.com

There are a few other "software" generators out there if you're
anti-Flash.

I noticed at Studiospares that the 1/2" 456 they were selling had 'NAB' next
to it, and wondered what it was.

If you're talking about a reel of blank tape, the "NAB" refers to the
dimensions of the reel hub. It means it has a big hole in the middle,
not a 1/4" hole.

I'm not sure how much the biasing of the VU's (i.e. setting them to +3 or +6
etc) will bother me, as I would generally only use them to see that the
tracks are getting reasonably compatible levels, and go more by listening to
how it sounds if I'm going hot to tape.

This is one good use for the built-in tone generator on your recorder.
When it's aligned properly, the generator should record a tone that
makes the VU meters go to 0 VU, and playing back that tone should make
the meters read 0 VU. When recording, you should set levels so that
the meters read in the ballpark of 0 VU with peaks a little higher. If
you record a 1 kHz and 10 kHz tone (a minute of each) at the beginning
of your "master" tape, then someone playing it on another recorder, or
you playing it on your own recorder, can make adjustments so that it
plays back at the correct level and with the correct high frequency
equalization. This is what's meant by "tones" when recording on analog
tape.


--
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

In article writes:

you'll especially want to know what's going on in the low end to figure
out where you want the bump to sit.

Mm, that sounds...involved!

It's another step in alignment. Not a big deal. I wouldn't try to use
a music synthesizer as a signal generator, but if you have a PC with a
sound card, there's a cute Flash program that simulates the NTI
Minirator on the company's web site http://www.nt-instruments.com

There are a few other "software" generators out there if you're
anti-Flash.

I noticed at Studiospares that the 1/2" 456 they were selling had 'NAB' next
to it, and wondered what it was.

If you're talking about a reel of blank tape, the "NAB" refers to the
dimensions of the reel hub. It means it has a big hole in the middle,
not a 1/4" hole.

I'm not sure how much the biasing of the VU's (i.e. setting them to +3 or +6
etc) will bother me, as I would generally only use them to see that the
tracks are getting reasonably compatible levels, and go more by listening to
how it sounds if I'm going hot to tape.

This is one good use for the built-in tone generator on your recorder.
When it's aligned properly, the generator should record a tone that
makes the VU meters go to 0 VU, and playing back that tone should make
the meters read 0 VU. When recording, you should set levels so that
the meters read in the ballpark of 0 VU with peaks a little higher. If
you record a 1 kHz and 10 kHz tone (a minute of each) at the beginning
of your "master" tape, then someone playing it on another recorder, or
you playing it on your own recorder, can make adjustments so that it
plays back at the correct level and with the correct high frequency
equalization. This is what's meant by "tones" when recording on analog
tape.


--
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

"Richard W. Rinn" wrote:

John Washburn wrote: Also, if you're not
planning on swapping tapes much, and you are mostly
experimenting on yourself, and it sounds okay don't worry too much about
having all the exact right tools before you starting making some
recordings.
Unless you're actually going for making masters (in which case you might
want to rethink the mixer) whatever you do wrong will probably either
not
be
a big deal, or will be pretty obvious right away (why is the sound on
the
outside tracks so muffled? Hmmmm).

Well, I will be recording stuff to be released. Already done an album on
the Fostex R8 with the 812. Just haven't recorded with any other
equipment,
so I don't know any better really. If you were using the MX5050 with
the 812 mixer, and wanted to 'move up in the world', what direction would
you go in? To be honest, the mixer is really just used as a preamp for
going to tape, as I don't use EQ or anything at the recording stage...

Alright, I'll admit that I haven't heard the 812, so I can't comment
directly on it, but if it's in a similar league with other Fostex gear, than
I'm pretty sure you could do better without breaking the bank. If it's not
bugging you, and it does what you need it to, than it's fine.

In my little personal writing setup, I have a 5050 and a Soundcraft 200B
which sounds fine for what I'm doing with it and could be a good choice if
you can find one that's been gone over recently--leaky caps and flakey
faders can be a problem with gear that's getting on 20 years old.

I should also admit that my bias at the moment is that as long as it isn't
actively hurting the signal by introducing a ton of noise and distortion,
the gear you use really isn't all *that* important to making a good
recording.

If you were recording a good, well arranged song, played by performers who
can play in time and in tune in a room that sounds okay, you'll probably be
fine using whatever is around. It might not sound state of the art, but
it'll be fine if it suits the material.

Of course, I'm a musician, not a professional engineer, so take that as you
will. I've just spent that last few months working on a big label record in
some of the better rooms in LA and NY that sounds okay in a radio friendly
kind of way, but isn't nearly as vibey or cool as the demos, which were done
with a PT LE rig in an untreated practice space.

You can easily make not very interesting sounding records using all the most
coveted gear. It's harder to do it the other way, but it's doable.

-jw

"Richard W. Rinn" wrote:

John Washburn wrote: Also, if you're not
planning on swapping tapes much, and you are mostly
experimenting on yourself, and it sounds okay don't worry too much about
having all the exact right tools before you starting making some
recordings.
Unless you're actually going for making masters (in which case you might
want to rethink the mixer) whatever you do wrong will probably either
not
be
a big deal, or will be pretty obvious right away (why is the sound on
the
outside tracks so muffled? Hmmmm).

Well, I will be recording stuff to be released. Already done an album on
the Fostex R8 with the 812. Just haven't recorded with any other
equipment,
so I don't know any better really. If you were using the MX5050 with
the 812 mixer, and wanted to 'move up in the world', what direction would
you go in? To be honest, the mixer is really just used as a preamp for
going to tape, as I don't use EQ or anything at the recording stage...

Alright, I'll admit that I haven't heard the 812, so I can't comment
directly on it, but if it's in a similar league with other Fostex gear, than
I'm pretty sure you could do better without breaking the bank. If it's not
bugging you, and it does what you need it to, than it's fine.

In my little personal writing setup, I have a 5050 and a Soundcraft 200B
which sounds fine for what I'm doing with it and could be a good choice if
you can find one that's been gone over recently--leaky caps and flakey
faders can be a problem with gear that's getting on 20 years old.

I should also admit that my bias at the moment is that as long as it isn't
actively hurting the signal by introducing a ton of noise and distortion,
the gear you use really isn't all *that* important to making a good
recording.

If you were recording a good, well arranged song, played by performers who
can play in time and in tune in a room that sounds okay, you'll probably be
fine using whatever is around. It might not sound state of the art, but
it'll be fine if it suits the material.

Of course, I'm a musician, not a professional engineer, so take that as you
will. I've just spent that last few months working on a big label record in
some of the better rooms in LA and NY that sounds okay in a radio friendly
kind of way, but isn't nearly as vibey or cool as the demos, which were done
with a PT LE rig in an untreated practice space.

You can easily make not very interesting sounding records using all the most
coveted gear. It's harder to do it the other way, but it's doable.

-jw

John Washburn wrote:
Alright, I'll admit that I haven't heard the 812, so I can't comment
directly on it, but if it's in a similar league with other Fostex gear,
than
I'm pretty sure you could do better without breaking the bank. If it's not
bugging you, and it does what you need it to, than it's fine.

Oh, I'm sure it's not very good in comparison with...err good stuff, but as
I say, it's all I've used, so I have nothing to compare it with yet.

If I was going to 'move up in the world', I think I'd like to keep it
simple, maybe just going from mic to preamp to tape. Trying out the V72 was
interesting, although the fact that it didn't have the facility to attenuate
or gain the signal could pose problematic in some situations, so a level
control knob at least would be good (not sure the one on the Otari would
have enough effect on some occasions). Wouldn't really want EQ or much of
anything else - phantom power would be nice. Don't have a clue about that
kind of thing. Been reading about them on here for a while, and checking
the archives, but if I had to pick one tomorrow, I'd be lost.


In my little personal writing setup, I have a 5050 and a Soundcraft 200B
which sounds fine for what I'm doing with it and could be a good choice if
you can find one that's been gone over recently--leaky caps and flakey
faders can be a problem with gear that's getting on 20 years old.

A lot of the gear we use in the band is over 30 years old. It breaks down a
lot, but it looks good (at least that's what we keep telling ourselves).
Thankfully the keyboard player can fix stuff.


I should also admit that my bias at the moment is that as long as it isn't
actively hurting the signal by introducing a ton of noise and distortion,
the gear you use really isn't all *that* important to making a good
recording.

If you were recording a good, well arranged song, played by performers who
can play in time and in tune in a room that sounds okay, you'll probably
be
fine using whatever is around. It might not sound state of the art, but
it'll be fine if it suits the material.

Yep, we rehearse arrangements, feels and all that before recording, and
spend some time setting up the instruments and recording apparatus. One day
it'd be nice to have nice rooms (we've always recorded in a two car concrete
garage up until now, and now we're trying a factory), and more fancy mic's
and all that. I'm always quite happy with the sound we get at any given
time, and then learn from it and do a little better when we next get a
chance to record, but what really adds some kinda weight to the thing is if
the performance was effective.


Of course, I'm a musician, not a professional engineer, so take that as
you
will. I've just spent that last few months working on a big label record
in
some of the better rooms in LA and NY that sounds okay in a radio friendly
kind of way, but isn't nearly as vibey or cool as the demos, which were
done
with a PT LE rig in an untreated practice space.

Sorry, what's PT LE?



Richard.

John Washburn wrote:
Alright, I'll admit that I haven't heard the 812, so I can't comment
directly on it, but if it's in a similar league with other Fostex gear,
than
I'm pretty sure you could do better without breaking the bank. If it's not
bugging you, and it does what you need it to, than it's fine.

Oh, I'm sure it's not very good in comparison with...err good stuff, but as
I say, it's all I've used, so I have nothing to compare it with yet.

If I was going to 'move up in the world', I think I'd like to keep it
simple, maybe just going from mic to preamp to tape. Trying out the V72 was
interesting, although the fact that it didn't have the facility to attenuate
or gain the signal could pose problematic in some situations, so a level
control knob at least would be good (not sure the one on the Otari would
have enough effect on some occasions). Wouldn't really want EQ or much of
anything else - phantom power would be nice. Don't have a clue about that
kind of thing. Been reading about them on here for a while, and checking
the archives, but if I had to pick one tomorrow, I'd be lost.


In my little personal writing setup, I have a 5050 and a Soundcraft 200B
which sounds fine for what I'm doing with it and could be a good choice if
you can find one that's been gone over recently--leaky caps and flakey
faders can be a problem with gear that's getting on 20 years old.

A lot of the gear we use in the band is over 30 years old. It breaks down a
lot, but it looks good (at least that's what we keep telling ourselves).
Thankfully the keyboard player can fix stuff.


I should also admit that my bias at the moment is that as long as it isn't
actively hurting the signal by introducing a ton of noise and distortion,
the gear you use really isn't all *that* important to making a good
recording.

If you were recording a good, well arranged song, played by performers who
can play in time and in tune in a room that sounds okay, you'll probably
be
fine using whatever is around. It might not sound state of the art, but
it'll be fine if it suits the material.

Yep, we rehearse arrangements, feels and all that before recording, and
spend some time setting up the instruments and recording apparatus. One day
it'd be nice to have nice rooms (we've always recorded in a two car concrete
garage up until now, and now we're trying a factory), and more fancy mic's
and all that. I'm always quite happy with the sound we get at any given
time, and then learn from it and do a little better when we next get a
chance to record, but what really adds some kinda weight to the thing is if
the performance was effective.


Of course, I'm a musician, not a professional engineer, so take that as
you
will. I've just spent that last few months working on a big label record
in
some of the better rooms in LA and NY that sounds okay in a radio friendly
kind of way, but isn't nearly as vibey or cool as the demos, which were
done
with a PT LE rig in an untreated practice space.

Sorry, what's PT LE?



Richard.

"Richard W. Rinn" wrote:
John Washburn wrote:
Alright, I'll admit that I haven't heard the 812, so I can't comment
directly on it, but if it's in a similar league with other Fostex gear,
than
I'm pretty sure you could do better without breaking the bank. If it's
not
bugging you, and it does what you need it to, than it's fine.

Oh, I'm sure it's not very good in comparison with...err good stuff, but
as
I say, it's all I've used, so I have nothing to compare it with yet.

Don't worry about then. Really. If you hit a wall where the gear is the
limiting factor, you'll hear it and can decide how to fix it then.



If I was going to 'move up in the world', I think I'd like to keep it
simple, maybe just going from mic to preamp to tape. Trying out the V72
was
interesting, although the fact that it didn't have the facility to
attenuate
or gain the signal could pose problematic in some situations, so a level
control knob at least would be good (not sure the one on the Otari would
have enough effect on some occasions). Wouldn't really want EQ or much of
anything else - phantom power would be nice. Don't have a clue about that
kind of thing. Been reading about them on here for a while, and checking
the archives, but if I had to pick one tomorrow, I'd be lost.

If you don't perceive a need, than def don't create one for yourself just
because someone else feels like s/he needs certain tools to get work done.
It's your ears (and those of your clients or, in this case, bandmates) you
have to please. Since it doesn't seem like you're trying to go into business
selling recording time, you are a self contained vessel of your own
satisfaction. Um... or something.



snip happens

Yep, we rehearse arrangements, feels and all that before recording, and
spend some time setting up the instruments and recording apparatus. One
day
it'd be nice to have nice rooms (we've always recorded in a two car
concrete
garage up until now, and now we're trying a factory), and more fancy mic's
and all that. I'm always quite happy with the sound we get at any given
time, and then learn from it and do a little better when we next get a
chance to record, but what really adds some kinda weight to the thing is
if
the performance was effective.

Exactly. And that's equally true in a real studio. The only difference is
that in a real studio the performance could be captured more effectively
with less effort.

But for a lot of people having time to play is more important to the
finished result than using all the best tools. A slightly wonky bottom end
or smeary imaging might not hurt the finished product nearly as much as an
unsatifactory performance could. For other projects, the opposite is true. I
think in many/most cases it never hurts to spend time/money/resources
focusing on the stuff that happens before the microphone.

A cheapo screw driver will drive a screw. It might not leave the screw
looking as pretty as a good one would have, but the screw will be in. It's
up to you to decide how important that is. For a professional engineer, it's
going to be *really* important, since that's principally how his or her work
is going to be judged.


Of course, I'm a musician, not a professional engineer, so take that as
you
will. I've just spent that last few months working on a big label record
in
some of the better rooms in LA and NY that sounds okay in a radio
friendly
kind of way, but isn't nearly as vibey or cool as the demos, which were
done
with a PT LE rig in an untreated practice space.

Sorry, what's PT LE?

Protools LE... the "prosumer" version of Protools.

-jw

"Richard W. Rinn" wrote:
John Washburn wrote:
Alright, I'll admit that I haven't heard the 812, so I can't comment
directly on it, but if it's in a similar league with other Fostex gear,
than
I'm pretty sure you could do better without breaking the bank. If it's
not
bugging you, and it does what you need it to, than it's fine.

Oh, I'm sure it's not very good in comparison with...err good stuff, but
as
I say, it's all I've used, so I have nothing to compare it with yet.

Don't worry about then. Really. If you hit a wall where the gear is the
limiting factor, you'll hear it and can decide how to fix it then.



If I was going to 'move up in the world', I think I'd like to keep it
simple, maybe just going from mic to preamp to tape. Trying out the V72
was
interesting, although the fact that it didn't have the facility to
attenuate
or gain the signal could pose problematic in some situations, so a level
control knob at least would be good (not sure the one on the Otari would
have enough effect on some occasions). Wouldn't really want EQ or much of
anything else - phantom power would be nice. Don't have a clue about that
kind of thing. Been reading about them on here for a while, and checking
the archives, but if I had to pick one tomorrow, I'd be lost.

If you don't perceive a need, than def don't create one for yourself just
because someone else feels like s/he needs certain tools to get work done.
It's your ears (and those of your clients or, in this case, bandmates) you
have to please. Since it doesn't seem like you're trying to go into business
selling recording time, you are a self contained vessel of your own
satisfaction. Um... or something.



snip happens

Yep, we rehearse arrangements, feels and all that before recording, and
spend some time setting up the instruments and recording apparatus. One
day
it'd be nice to have nice rooms (we've always recorded in a two car
concrete
garage up until now, and now we're trying a factory), and more fancy mic's
and all that. I'm always quite happy with the sound we get at any given
time, and then learn from it and do a little better when we next get a
chance to record, but what really adds some kinda weight to the thing is
if
the performance was effective.

Exactly. And that's equally true in a real studio. The only difference is
that in a real studio the performance could be captured more effectively
with less effort.

But for a lot of people having time to play is more important to the
finished result than using all the best tools. A slightly wonky bottom end
or smeary imaging might not hurt the finished product nearly as much as an
unsatifactory performance could. For other projects, the opposite is true. I
think in many/most cases it never hurts to spend time/money/resources
focusing on the stuff that happens before the microphone.

A cheapo screw driver will drive a screw. It might not leave the screw
looking as pretty as a good one would have, but the screw will be in. It's
up to you to decide how important that is. For a professional engineer, it's
going to be *really* important, since that's principally how his or her work
is going to be judged.


Of course, I'm a musician, not a professional engineer, so take that as
you
will. I've just spent that last few months working on a big label record
in
some of the better rooms in LA and NY that sounds okay in a radio
friendly
kind of way, but isn't nearly as vibey or cool as the demos, which were
done
with a PT LE rig in an untreated practice space.

Sorry, what's PT LE?

Protools LE... the "prosumer" version of Protools.

-jw

Richard W. Rinn wrote:
Aaron J. Grier wrote:
you'll especially want to know what's going on in the low end to
figure out where you want the bump to sit.

Mm, that sounds...involved!

you could just ignore to.

that's the "SRL" button. and of course it's actually adjustable via
a pot on the back panel.

Noticed that. What would one set it against/to?

the goal is to get a consistent mapping from playback level to VU level,
and from VU level to record level. IE if you have everything calibrated
so 0VU = 250nW/m, when you play back a 250nW/m calibration tape, the
meters should read OVU. when you record a signal which reads 0VU on the
meter, it should print on the tape at 250nW/m.

if you don't have a manual for your mx5050mkIII, GET ONE NOW! it will
walk you through the process.

In the local studio, before the XLR's were re-wired, when we tried an
SM58 through a V72 preamp straight into the input, it seemed fine.
Putting a signal through his big mixing desk and patchbay however, the
signal was really weak and also distorted. Would this have been more
to do with the pin wiring? I'm sure we tried that switch set to H and
L.

most likely. especially if the patchbay wasn't balanced.

be aware that your unit may be IEC, and not NAB.
[snip]
I noticed at Studiospares that the 1/2" 456 they were selling had
'NAB' next to it, and wondered what it was. I didn't buy mine from
there, and don't know if mine's NAB or not (if indeed that's something
that applies to the tape also, like Studiospares' site would suggest).

overload of the term "NAB". NAB refers to record and playback
equalizations, but it's also used to refer to the size of the hole in a
tape. NAB reels have a big hole in the middle and on the otari have a
locking ring that holds them in place. non-NAB are what you see on
consumer 1/4" reel-to-reels and have a small rubber stopper to hold them
on.

I assume your MX5050 came with the NAB hubs?

So Jay will know from the serial number if it's NAB or IEC?

last time I asked Jay [1], he wasn't sure when otari made their
changeover from NAB to IEC. However, otari would know. I bet if you
dropped them an email or phone call [2] and told them your serial number
they could tell you for certain if your unit is NAB or IEC. you could
also order a manual.

Or is there a way to find out via the machine?

get ahold of a calibration tape, and attempt to calibrate it. see which
standard gives you a flatter record/playback response.

if you don't have both NAB and IEC tapes, MRL literature describes the
correction factors used to turn one standard into the other. it's
involved, but is possible.

I'm not sure how much the biasing of the VU's (i.e. setting them to +3
or +6 etc) will bother me, as I would generally only use them to see
that the tracks are getting reasonably compatible levels, and go more
by listening to how it sounds if I'm going hot to tape.

that's why they're adjustable. different tape formulations will have
different distortion characteristics. VUs have inertia (ballistics) and
don't respond to instantaneous peaks. the red lights are also
adjustable. it's all in the otari manual.

The only thing that's caused issues with this earlier on was when we
first recorded the Hammond through the Leslie, as the 'mean' level was
a lot lower than the other channels before you started getting audible
distortion on the oscillating peaks.

try recording a triangle or jingling keys. (:

I really don't know much at all about different brands of tape, or
their effects on the sound and so on.

if you're curious you could always get some used tape from various
places [3] try biasing them on your machine, and see how they sound.

if you've got the time, there's no substitute for experimentation.

tape recording is a juggling act between a bunch of different axes.
it's very easy to get sucked into futzing rather than actually recording
anything. [4]

I think I remember reading something somewhere about thicker tape
being less prone to print-through?

you'll probably only see 1.5mil tape. (1.0 exists, but isn't as
common.) store your reels tails out and don't worry about it for now.

What's GP9 then?

GP9 is a high-bias tape made by quantegy [5].

[1] Jay McKnight runs MRL, http://home.flash.net/~mrltapes/ , a company
that makes calibration tapes for reel-to-reel machines.
[2] try
[3] http://www.tapetape.com/ is one, if you ask around local music
stores and studios you might be able to find other sources.
[4] not that I know anything about futzing over recording; not me.
maybe ask some other guys in this group... (:
[5] http://www.quantegy.com/audio.asp
--
Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." |
"someday the industry will have throbbing frontal lobes and will be able
to write provably correct software. also, I want a pony." -- Zach Brown