| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
seeking advice on an analogue home studio setup
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. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
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? |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Chris Pickett wrote: Okay, well thanks for being frank. 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 remember that back in the day, this stuff was way expensive. Another thing to factor in is maintenance. What shape is this thing in? People today bitch about computers being difficult, but the fact of the matter is that every studio I worked at in back in the day had people on call for tape deck and console calibration and maintenance, if not on staff. Learning how to calibrate (and purchasing the correct calibration tapes) was an investment on its own. If you are trying to do this on the cheap, I would suggest that you go digital and invest in good converters and software. The day to day running costs are a lot less (you can get 150-200 gb drives for the cost of a reel of 2" tape). Get a good analog mixdown deck if you want that, but analog multitrack is not a good way to save money if you are not already doing it. just my 02c. Edwin |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Edwin Hurwitz wrote:
In article , Chris Pickett wrote: Okay, well thanks for being frank. 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 remember that back in the day, this stuff was way expensive. Another thing to factor in is maintenance. What shape is this thing in? People today bitch about computers being difficult, but the fact of the matter is that every studio I worked at in back in the day had people on call for tape deck and console calibration and maintenance, if not on staff. Learning how to calibrate (and purchasing the correct calibration tapes) was an investment on its own. That particular model sounds like it's in good condition, however, I realize that calibration and maintenance are a necessity. I'm willing to learn how to do these things (and to become handy with a soldering iron and all things electronic). If you are trying to do this on the cheap, I would suggest that you go digital and invest in good converters and software. The day to day running costs are a lot less (you can get 150-200 gb drives for the cost of a reel of 2" tape). Get a good analog mixdown deck if you want that, but analog multitrack is not a good way to save money if you are not already doing it. Yeah ... digital can certainly be cheap, especially when you consider how readily available music warez are. However, I work with and program computers all day (I'm a grad student in computer science), and when it comes to music, I just can't bear to deal with all this extra software .... and upgrading computers ... and bugs ... it's totally demotivating to me. I almost don't even want to use a computer-based sequencer, even though it's probably the only practical option for MIDI. I know for sure that I'll have fun with tape; it's something real, something that I can touch ... I've had fun for years DJing with vinyl records and making cassette recordings. There's also the aspect of unlimited control that comes with digital stuff that just doesn't inspire me to be creative. I don't really know how else to explain myself on this front ... is it really that weird and/or naive? Anyway, I am leaning towards a lower budget now, as I outlined in the response to Mike. If for some reason I hate it / can't deal with it, then I haven't wasted much money, and if I love it, then I'll do the best I can with it and have a much better view of what I want / need. Cheers, Chris |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chris Pickett wrote:
I don't really know how else to explain myself on this front ... is it really that weird and/or naive? No, that's very sensible, especially for a CS guy. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
I just can't bear to deal with all this extra software
.... and upgrading computers ... and bugs ... it's totally demotivating to me. BRBR Wait until a bad voltage regulator in you 20 year old 80-8 makes the take up reel motor suddenly run at half speed in the middle of fast forwarding a reel. You'll wish you could give it the "three finger salute". Digital gear certainly does have it's bugs and faults. But cheap, old analog gear is probably going to be even less reliable, especially considering things like capacitors getting leaky with old age, pinch rollers drying out and becoming slippery uneven head wear, and noisy old pots and faders. If you like noisy recordings you can always use ****ty cable and cheap mic preamps. Good, up-to-spec analog gear is quiet and transparent. OTOH, Master anything poorly to cheap recycled vinyl and it will have the "vintage" pops and crackles so often mislabeled "warmth". I know this came off as harsh. There certainly is a lot of fun to be had with analog gear. Just don't delude yourself into believing that a 20 year old, narrow guage semi-pro analog deck (and it's matching Ramsa T820B console) will cause you less grief than a good PC and an Mbox. If you're locked into MIDI already, addding a huge analog component to your recording chain will almost certainly double the odds equipment failure. A well tweaked computer (or better yet a purpose-built stand alone HD recorder) can actually be pretty reliable. Joe Egan EMP Colchester, VT www.eganmedia.com |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'd stay away from Scully 8 track RTRs, just on general principles. And I'd
stay away from Tascam units too, even though I owned a 38 for 10 years. Did a good job, but it limited my abilities to do a better job. I kinda agree with Mike Rivers on an Ampex 1200 (better than the 1100) 2" and although a lot of clients won't want to pay the money for tape, at least it can sound really good. It ain't light so you'll have to have someone local who does studio calls for maintenance and repairs. -- Roger W. Norman SirMusic Studio "Chris Pickett" wrote in message ... Edwin Hurwitz wrote: In article , Chris Pickett wrote: Okay, well thanks for being frank. 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 remember that back in the day, this stuff was way expensive. Another thing to factor in is maintenance. What shape is this thing in? People today bitch about computers being difficult, but the fact of the matter is that every studio I worked at in back in the day had people on call for tape deck and console calibration and maintenance, if not on staff. Learning how to calibrate (and purchasing the correct calibration tapes) was an investment on its own. That particular model sounds like it's in good condition, however, I realize that calibration and maintenance are a necessity. I'm willing to learn how to do these things (and to become handy with a soldering iron and all things electronic). If you are trying to do this on the cheap, I would suggest that you go digital and invest in good converters and software. The day to day running costs are a lot less (you can get 150-200 gb drives for the cost of a reel of 2" tape). Get a good analog mixdown deck if you want that, but analog multitrack is not a good way to save money if you are not already doing it. Yeah ... digital can certainly be cheap, especially when you consider how readily available music warez are. However, I work with and program computers all day (I'm a grad student in computer science), and when it comes to music, I just can't bear to deal with all this extra software ... and upgrading computers ... and bugs ... it's totally demotivating to me. I almost don't even want to use a computer-based sequencer, even though it's probably the only practical option for MIDI. I know for sure that I'll have fun with tape; it's something real, something that I can touch ... I've had fun for years DJing with vinyl records and making cassette recordings. There's also the aspect of unlimited control that comes with digital stuff that just doesn't inspire me to be creative. I don't really know how else to explain myself on this front ... is it really that weird and/or naive? Anyway, I am leaning towards a lower budget now, as I outlined in the response to Mike. If for some reason I hate it / can't deal with it, then I haven't wasted much money, and if I love it, then I'll do the best I can with it and have a much better view of what I want / need. Cheers, Chris |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
EganMedia wrote:
I know this came off as harsh. There certainly is a lot of fun to be had with analog gear. Just don't delude yourself into believing that a 20 year old, narrow guage semi-pro analog deck (and it's matching Ramsa T820B console) will cause you less grief than a good PC and an Mbox. If you're locked into MIDI already, addding a huge analog component to your recording chain will almost certainly double the odds equipment failure. A well tweaked computer (or better yet a purpose-built stand alone HD recorder) can actually be pretty reliable. And note that you CAN buy a solid and reliable analogue machine. But it is going to cost you a lot more than an 80-8 will. There are folks out there who will pick up a 440-8 or something and replace all the capacitors, bearings, etc, resurface the heads and all of the electrical contacts, and sell you a solid and reliable machine. But you could buy a lot of standlone HD recorders for the cost. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Roger W. Norman wrote:
I'd stay away from Scully 8 track RTRs, just on general principles. And I'd stay away from Tascam units too, even though I owned a 38 for 10 years. Did a good job, but it limited my abilities to do a better job. I would second that, WITH an exception for the Scully 280B, which is actually a nice machine. The original 280 is a machine to avoid like the plague, and if you find a 100 that hasn't met the crusher already, it might be worth helping it go there. I kinda agree with Mike Rivers on an Ampex 1200 (better than the 1100) 2" and although a lot of clients won't want to pay the money for tape, at least it can sound really good. It ain't light so you'll have to have someone local who does studio calls for maintenance and repairs. The 1100 is still a nice machine, and both the 1100 and 1200 are fairly easy machines to work on. There are a lot of them out there that have been beat to hell, though. The 440-8 is selling for very little these days, but again a lot of them are in rough shape. You need to buy from somebody who you can trust to sell you what you're paying for. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
EganMedia wrote:
I just can't bear to deal with all this extra software ... and upgrading computers ... and bugs ... it's totally demotivating to me. BRBR Wait until a bad voltage regulator in you 20 year old 80-8 makes the take up reel motor suddenly run at half speed in the middle of fast forwarding a reel. You'll wish you could give it the "three finger salute". Digital gear certainly does have it's bugs and faults. But cheap, old analog gear is probably going to be even less reliable, especially considering things like capacitors getting leaky with old age, pinch rollers drying out and becoming slippery uneven head wear, and noisy old pots and faders. If you like noisy recordings you can always use ****ty cable and cheap mic preamps. Good, up-to-spec analog gear is quiet and transparent. OTOH, Master anything poorly to cheap recycled vinyl and it will have the "vintage" pops and crackles so often mislabeled "warmth". I feel like I need to clarify a couple of things. I don't really think the crunchy, lo-fi, retro sound that is all the rage right now is all that cool; in other words, this pursuit isn't a silly fad thing for me. In the last 8 years, I've bought about 1500 records, most of them brand new, and I've listened to ten times that number in shops. I'm really quite sure that I want high quality vinyl (no pops and crackles) and for the recordings to come from tape: the few records I've heard that do come from tape (most techno/house producers now use digital audio) have this magical quality to them, and that's almost certainly without using 1/8"-per-track machines ... yes, I can imagine a better environment would have only made them better. Second, I work with computers all day; I write software for them, configure operating systems, design and implement programming languages, and play with really powerful CPU's. Irrespective of the fact that I use Linux exclusively (and don't have access to industry-grade products like Cubase and Logic), there's only so much staring at a screen that I can handle. It's like, you work at a golf club, 50-60 hours a week -- when you finally have a day off, do you really want to go and play golf? Might be a bad analogy, I don't golf. I know this came off as harsh. There certainly is a lot of fun to be had with analog gear. Just don't delude yourself into believing that a 20 year old, narrow guage semi-pro analog deck (and it's matching Ramsa T820B console) will cause you less grief than a good PC and an Mbox. If you're locked into MIDI already, addding a huge analog component to your recording chain will almost certainly double the odds equipment failure. A well tweaked computer (or better yet a purpose-built stand alone HD recorder) can actually be pretty reliable. Your points are well-taken, and appreciated. I keep flip-flopping on the issue, but from all that I keep hearing from you guys, it now seems that what I should look for is a good 1" 8-track and a respectable 32-channel console to go with it. Preferably local, due to shipping concerns, and since Montreal likely has something in store for me. The MIDI stuff I have and will buy is all analog (MIDI is just control signals). I can't think of any (affordable) digital sound sources that I like better over their analog equivalents ... especially not for the kind of music I'm doing, where realism is not an issue. I'm also quite interested in doing things like building analog effects pedals, and then integrating MIDI chips into them. I guess it's not so much about avoiding problems and getting a rock-solid reliable working environment as 1) doing something different from all the blah-****ing-blah electronic music recorded on computers, 2) learning about this immense history of recording that's getting swept away by the digital age, and 3) having a fun hobby to keep me sane during a Ph.D.; that includes to a certain extent fixing things and replacing components and calibrating equipment. Cheers, Chris |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Roger W. Norman wrote: I'd stay away from Scully 8 track RTRs, just on general principles. And I'd stay away from Tascam units too, even though I owned a 38 for 10 years. Did a good job, but it limited my abilities to do a better job. I would second that, WITH an exception for the Scully 280B, which is actually a nice machine. The original 280 is a machine to avoid like the plague, and if you find a 100 that hasn't met the crusher already, it might be worth helping it go there. Okay, I hear you about Tascam and Scully. I kinda agree with Mike Rivers on an Ampex 1200 (better than the 1100) 2" and although a lot of clients won't want to pay th money for tape, at least it can sound really good. It ain't light so you'll have to have someone local who does studio calls for maintenance and repairs. The 1100 is still a nice machine, and both the 1100 and 1200 are fairly easy machines to work on. There are a lot of them out there that have been beat to hell, though. The 440-8 is selling for very little these days, but again a lot of them are in rough shape. You need to buy from somebody who you can trust to sell you what you're paying for. I found this thread quite interesting: http://marsh.prosoundweb.com/index.php/mv/msg/276/0/0/ especially with slipperman's roundup at the bottom of the page. I found the history behind the Stephens 24 machine pretty fascinating: totally unconventional design, models that kept changing, out of this world sound, Stephens himself would be the only one you could ask for advice and you'd have to phone him while in transition houses or in *jail*, and just in June some studio had to fly him out to fix their recorder. I'm not thinking about trying to get one, but I'm certainly damn curious ... Speaking of the Ampex 1200, there's one that used to be on eBay for $1400, with 1" 8-track heads and needing a new motor (estimated $500). http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...30717 61&rd=1 Is something like this too sketchy to go for? Is learning to service my own gear (whatever brand) really unfeasible? Chris |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chris Pickett wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: Roger W. Norman wrote: I'd stay away from Scully 8 track RTRs, just on general principles. And I'd stay away from Tascam units too, even though I owned a 38 for 10 years. Did a good job, but it limited my abilities to do a better job. I would second that, WITH an exception for the Scully 280B, which is actually a nice machine. The original 280 is a machine to avoid like the plague, and if you find a 100 that hasn't met the crusher already, it might be worth helping it go there. Okay, I hear you about Tascam and Scully. Tascam actually made some reasonable 2" machines for a while, which I would not hesitate to grab. But the narrowtrack machines, well, they are narrowtrack machines. I found this thread quite interesting: http://marsh.prosoundweb.com/index.php/mv/msg/276/0/0/ especially with slipperman's roundup at the bottom of the page. I found the history behind the Stephens 24 machine pretty fascinating: totally unconventional design, models that kept changing, out of this world sound, Stephens himself would be the only one you could ask for advice and you'd have to phone him while in transition houses or in *jail*, and just in June some studio had to fly him out to fix their recorder. I'm not thinking about trying to get one, but I'm certainly damn curious ... This is sort of exaggerated. A lot of the problem was the unconventional design, but a lot of it was just the lack of proper service documentation. Today the Stephens machines aren't too bad to work on, and most of the parts are reasonably easy to make in a well-equipped shop. Speaking of the Ampex 1200, there's one that used to be on eBay for $1400, with 1" 8-track heads and needing a new motor (estimated $500). http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...30717 61&rd=1 Is something like this too sketchy to go for? Is learning to service my own gear (whatever brand) really unfeasible? I dunno. But I would not buy a machine with suspicious heads and a known-bad motor unless I was possibly considering learning to do motor rebuilds. Which is a fun thing to do, but the question you have to ask is whether you want to learn to do maintenance work or play music. Both can be fun. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article znr1101513785k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:
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 should add that he is ALSO a really good guy to buy a tape machine from. So is Boynton Studios. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chris Pickett wrote:
Yeah ... digital can certainly be cheap, especially when you consider how readily available music warez are. However, I work with and program computers all day (I'm a grad student in computer science), and when it comes to music, I just can't bear to deal with all this extra software ... and upgrading computers ... and bugs ... it's totally demotivating to me. I understand. but remember that well-designed and executed embedded software is indistinguishable from gnomes. do you worry about the software running on your andromeda's coldfire CPU? there are plenty of standalone digital recorders which function for all intents and purposes like analog decks. at the extreme high-end you've got the iZ RADAR systems, and down the chain standalone boxes from Yamaha, Roland/BOSS, TASCAM, etc. you can pretend they're run by magic pixies instead of embedded CPUs. I almost don't even want to use a computer-based sequencer, even though it's probably the only practical option for MIDI. there are standalone MIDI sequencers. I've gotten a lot of mileage out of my ASQ-10, and there are plenty of new and used choices out there. I suggest looking at standalone sequencers from Akai and Yamaha to start. I know for sure that I'll have fun with tape; it's something real, something that I can touch ... I've had fun for years DJing with vinyl records and making cassette recordings. There's also the aspect of unlimited control that comes with digital stuff that just doesn't inspire me to be creative. I don't really know how else to explain myself on this front ... is it really that weird and/or naive? I'm kind of the same way. not having a screen to look at forces you to LISTEN. distractions and choices are limited, forcing you to produce something rather than tweak endlessly. however, decent digital these days is cheaper and less work than decent analog. tape requires a significant ongoing commitment to regular maintenance and media costs. digital is cheap by comparison. Anyway, I am leaning towards a lower budget now, as I outlined in the response to Mike. If for some reason I hate it / can't deal with it, then I haven't wasted much money, and if I love it, then I'll do the best I can with it and have a much better view of what I want / need. if you're on a budget, don't rule out the standalone digital stuff. a lot of it shares similar workflow aspects of tape, even if it doesn't quite smell the same. -- 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 |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chris, I fail to understand what you plan to do with the analog
recorder. Why not just record and edit everything in MIDI? Quantize what you want to quantize, and leave leads, solos, etc un-quantized, just as they were performed. And you'd have almost infinite tracks for alternate takes, etc. Because trust me, you'll run out of 8 analog tracks in a flash, especially if any of the parts are in stereo. In the 80's and 90's we'd constantly be running out of tracks on a 2" 24-track machine doing that type of stuff. We'd always be comping stuff together to make room for vocals and other non-MIDI parts. Pain in the butt, and if you're all-MIDI anyways, I don't know why you'd want to torture yourself. Sure, there are some artistic advantages to being forced to make decisions, but there are usually a lot of more productive ways to channel your creativity rather than getting bogged down in that quagmire. What I might do in your situation is to get a good analog mixer, like a Speck, with a lot of channels for all your synths and FX and then perhaps record your final stereo mix to an analog 2-track such as an Ampex-102. Or rack your gear up and then book a few hours in a pro studio to dump it onto an analog 2-track once you've recorded and tweaked it to your heart's content in MIDI. Or record to DAT and then dump it to analog with your mastering guy. If you just want to learn how to do maintenance on old analog gear; intern with a studio or tech. They'll be thrilled to have you. But if you really just want to get your music recorded, it strikes me that your headed for a huge sidetrack tangent. If I've missed something in your previous posts that explains why you want to do this to yourself, then please forgive me. Good luck, Rick Novak. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... 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 should add that he is ALSO a really good guy to buy a tape machine from. So is Boynton Studios. Gotta watch them, though, at least on consignment stuff; my Revox A700, a consignment item, was advertised as having a remote, and when it arrived, it didn't. They said, "Go take it up with the seller" and I never got it, or money back. Peace, Paul |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi again Chris,
Well, I've re-read your original post and noticed you mentioned three turntables. So I guess you're trying to capture some type of live performance in addition to the MIDI stuff. My mistake, I had thought you were 100% MIDI. Are you looking to overdub parts, or just mix a performance down to 2 track? Either way, I'd highly recommend looking at a Speck mixer to combine all your audio sources. They're specifically made for what you're doing. If you Google for "Speck Electronics" you'll find their site. Cheers, Rick. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
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) |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
rickymix wrote:
Hi again Chris, Well, I've re-read your original post and noticed you mentioned three turntables. So I guess you're trying to capture some type of live performance in addition to the MIDI stuff. My mistake, I had thought you were 100% MIDI. See my ridiculously long post. The turntables are sort of an optional part ... there are several other reasons why I'm not 100% MIDI. Are you looking to overdub parts, or just mix a performance down to 2 track? Either way, I'd highly recommend looking at a Speck mixer to combine all your audio sources. They're specifically made for what you're doing. If you Google for "Speck Electronics" you'll find their site. I'll look at Speck. I want to overdub parts, so I need a recorder. I forgot to include in my list of consoles under consideration. Cheers, Chris |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chris Pickett wrote:
I'll look at Speck. I want to overdub parts, so I need a recorder. I forgot to include in my list of consoles under consideration. s/forgot to include in/forgot to include Speck in/ |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chris Pickett wrote:
rickymix wrote: Hi again Chris, Well, I've re-read your original post and noticed you mentioned three turntables. So I guess you're trying to capture some type of live performance in addition to the MIDI stuff. My mistake, I had thought you were 100% MIDI. See my ridiculously long post. The turntables are sort of an optional part ... there are several other reasons why I'm not 100% MIDI. Are you looking to overdub parts, or just mix a performance down to 2 track? Either way, I'd highly recommend looking at a Speck mixer to combine all your audio sources. They're specifically made for what you're doing. If you Google for "Speck Electronics" you'll find their site. I'll look at Speck. I want to overdub parts, so I need a recorder. I forgot to include in my list of consoles under consideration. There's this that just ended on eBay and which I could probably still grab (between $2000 and $2700): http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...sPageName=WDVW or did you mean I should look for their non-rackmount unit (for considerably more dollars)? (XTRAMIXcxi) http://www.speck.com/xmix_2.shtml (LiLo) http://www.speck.com/lilo/lilo.shtml Cheers, Chris |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 thesemachines 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 |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 thesemachines 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 |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Advice on speakers for Home Cinema rcvr... | Pro Audio | |||
| Advice on speakers for Home Cinema rcvr... | Pro Audio | |||
| JBL Studio Home Theater speakers for.. (ezClassifieds) | Marketplace | |||
| 4th album, need studio upgrade advice | Pro Audio | |||
| Colorado home studio for sale | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
