Skip to main content

Hey this is five-foot and I am wanting to re-open a studio. The building was built 15yrs ago still in good condition. My problem is that I am wanting to be digital and analog. I already have a fast computer, a pair of peavey AMR monitors and Tascam 8-track reel to reel, and some other small gear. My question is what do need and what about the hookup to make everything work.

Topic Tags

Comments

anonymous Fri, 04/18/2003 - 20:51

Ditto. Unless you have a pre-existing demand, then aren't you wizzin' in the wind? This is obviously a demo studio.

Why do you want to be analog and digital? Unless you have really great analog gear, it is better just to be digital. Also, your analog format should be one in demand. What analog deck do you have? I am going to get flamed, but if you have a Tascam or a Fostex, you can forget it. Those don't cut it anymore. They don't have the analog sonics that people think of when they think of a Studer, or even an Otari.

KurtFoster Fri, 04/18/2003 - 21:47

Originally posted by lowdbrent:

Why do you want to be analog and digital?

I want to know this too, but not in the "Why would you want to do that?" way. Really what are your reasons for this?

I will say this. It's a good thing to be moving into a facility that is already built. Especially if all the room treatments are still there. But why did the first studio that was there leave/go out of business? Like Steve asks, "What about customers?" Is this studio going to be for your own use or do you want to start a commercial venture? Kurt

anonymous Sat, 04/19/2003 - 02:43

Originally posted by lowdbrent:
Ditto. Unless you have a pre-existing demand, then aren't you wizzin' in the wind? This is obviously a demo studio.

Why do you want to be analog and digital? Unless you have really great analog gear, it is better just to be digital. Also, your analog format should be one in demand. What analog deck do you have? I am going to get flamed, but if you have a Tascam or a Fostex, you can forget it. Those don't cut it anymore. They don't have the analog sonics that people think of when they think of a Studer, or even an Otari.

A Fostex G16/24 will give you a sound quality that's better than some 2" machines.

A Tascam MSR24S comes close to the Fostex G series

Stephen Paul said some about it a year or so ago.

This is not meant to be a flame :D :p:

sdevino Sat, 04/19/2003 - 05:11

when thinking about analog tape, a good starting point is to do a little math. Generally (but not always) the best sounding tape scenario involves wider tracks and higher record speed (though some tape decks sound better at 15ips than 30 ips).

A. 1/4 inch tape with 4 tracks = 1/16 inch/track
B. 1/4 inch 2 track = 1/8 inch/track (better)
C. 1/2 inch 4 track = 1/8 inch/track (same as B)
D. 1/2 inch 2 track = 1/4 inch /track (Outstanding)
E. 1 inch 8 track = 1/8 inch/track (same as B)
F. 1 inch 16 track = 1/16 inch/track (same as A)
G. 2 inch 16 track = 1/8 inch per track (Same as C, not as good as D)
F. 2 Inch 24 track = 1/12 inch per track (not as good as B, C, E or G)

G. 1/4 inch 8 track = 1/32 inch per track (ouch!)
H. 1/2 inch 16 track = 1/32 inch per track (no thank you).

The only choices that have even a chance of sounding close to digital is D. Others that come almost close are: B, C, E and G.

Otherwise you are just fooling around.

Steve

anonymous Sat, 04/19/2003 - 08:54

Originally posted by sdevino:
The only choices that have even a chance of sounding close to digital is D. Others that come almost close are: B, C, E and G.

Otherwise you are just fooling around.

Steve

Why should analog sound close to digital? It's just another world of experiencing sound/music.

A compact cassette is a 1/8" 4 tracks tape with a speed of less than 5 cm/sec.

Still a Nakamichi 582 with a metal cassette sounds incredibly good, better than some DAT machines.

My clients are shocked when they hear the difference between DAT/CDR and even a 1/4" 15 ips
Studer machine.

I don't want to have another analog/digital debate here, but hi end analog is simply different from hi end digital.

Many audio engineers say analog sounds better, more natural, more like the source, with more width, fore and background.

I'm one of them. Digital audio is popular because it's cheap and very flexible. An engineer who prefers analog for post production must be a lunatic :D

But for recording music in order to listen to it on your stereo?

A new built Studer 827 should cost as much as how many ProTools HD sets these days?

So my friend, don't tell me the best analog format comes "close" to digital. Then you must record a really nice sound with hi end mics, pre's and other hi end gear to digital and for example a Studer, Ampex ATR, or similar and listen very good.

And than tell me what sounds closest to its original.

Sorry for ranting :p:

sdevino Sat, 04/19/2003 - 18:02

My point was that not all analog is created equal. If you go buy a fostex 1/4 inch 8 track you are not necessarily getting all the analog goodies of a 1 inch 8 track ATR. THAT was my point.

You can argue all day long about whether or not you prefer analog or digital as a format. That is personal taste. But a preference for analog in my opinion does not mean it sounds more like the source, just that you prefer its kind of distortion vs what digital does.

Sometimes it is the engineer though, because I know I can get digital to sound warmer and bigger and more real than any format of analog. In order to do this you need to throw away your analog recording habits when tracking and mixing in digital.

Analog in the hands of a great engineer is a wonderful thing.

Digital in the hands of a great engineer is a different wonderful thing.

Which you prefer is personal taste. The engineer in me has never liked the hiss on tape and the musician in me can't stand the sound of dolby noise reduction.

With digital I get exactly what was coming through my speakers when I tracked the subject, every single time I play it back. The trick is to make it sound great when tracking. Get instrument placement in the mix using the room detail you never heard in analog. Lay off the EQ, compress to taste and use time and phase to move things in the mix if needed rather than a lot of panning.

Digital is popular with younger engineers because they know how to get it sounding sweet better than they do analog. The opposite is true for a lot of old timers (I am 45) because they track using vintage gear or stuff with toooo much high end AND they monitor input while tracking rather than the digital 2-bus.

Thats my opinion anyway.

KurtFoster Sat, 04/19/2003 - 18:17

Originally posted by Han:

A Fostex G16/24 will give you a sound quality that's better than some 2" machines.

That would have to be a sorry assed sounding 2" machine. I have worked on Fostex G16 w/ Dolby S custom configured at the factory for 30 ips, and I think it sounded good.. but still no where as good as my MCI JH 24 2" did with a 16 track headstack on it @ 30 ips with no noise reduction (didn't need it). Stephen may have been speaking about acoustic guitar tracks or vocals but for deep bass, you gotta have that wide tape. Kurt

anonymous Sun, 04/20/2003 - 00:59

Steve, yes, we can argue about the subject for a long time, but there has been so many discussion about the subject already.

I have heard recordings, done on great tape machines that sounded so good that I can't imagine it would sound any better on whatever. Because the sound was just perfect.

I agree with you about the 1/4" 8 track stuff, sounds bad.

I must admit I got a little upset about your statement that 1/2" 2 track comes close to digital. Sorry for that.

I still think though, 1/2" 2 tr. sounds nicer than any digital format, a matter of taste.

Sometimes it is the engineer though, because I know I can get digital to sound warmer and bigger and more real than any format of analog. In order to do this you need to throw away your analog recording habits when tracking and mixing in digital.

I would very much like to hear one of those recordings. I have Nuendo and although it sounds really good, I still find 2" even with Dolby A a better sounding format. I guess I'm an old tape slut :D

Thank you Steve for giving your honest opinion. :tu:

Peace, Han

Ethan Winer Sun, 04/20/2003 - 04:17

Steve,

> With digital I get exactly what was coming through my speakers when I tracked the subject, every single time I play it back. The trick is to make it sound great when tracking. <

Spoken from experience. Thanks for taking a subject that is argued about constantly and putting what really matters in the forefront.

--Ethan

sdevino Sun, 04/20/2003 - 09:59

Han,
Just add a small amount of perspective, I will never refuse an offer to mix to 1/2 inch 2 track. It is definitely the king of analog sound. And yes, it may be better suited to certain source material than digital.

Digital has made marked inprovements in the past 12 months. Check out the Digi 192i/o if you haven't already. And I am sure that most of the new converters have significantly better sound than anything older than 1 to 2 years.

KurtFoster Sun, 04/20/2003 - 10:47

Han,
To add a bit more perspective, I have also worked with 15 ips G16s and I thought the 30ips G16 machine sounded better. Much more headroom, quieter and still plenty of low end down to 40 Hz. I have also worked on 1/2" and 1" Tascam 16 tracks with and without the DBX or Dolby on (all scenarios) and I don't think any of them hold a candle to 2" tape at any speed. The best sounding narrow gauge format machine I have ever used was an OTARI 1” 16 track, with +4 electronics.

These are all great machines and I would never give away one that was working but IMO the 2" format is the best. This has much to do with the fact that the electronics are better on the professional format machines as well as the added track width.

To visit digital, IMO in the bass regions is where digital excels. Actually, from 10k down, what you put in is what comes out. No head bump and flat down to 20Hz. No analog machine compares in terms of accuracy. It's the high frequencies that get messed up with digital, resulting in a loss of high frequencies, collapse of stereo imaging and perceived depth and a feeling that a ceiling has been lowered down.

I think both mediums can be put to use successfully and that either one is really just a tool, neither of them being perfect. Both have their attributes and drawbacks.

What has become desirable now in the present, 20 years ago, recordists were fighting. Mic preamps, eq circuits and outboard dynamics processors that "colored" the signal were being complained about all the time with the "holy grail" being transparency. Now engineers and producers crave those colored sounds in an effort to recreate some of the magic that was produced in those times. But I think that magic really came more from the fact that without all the manipulation and tuning and time stretching and morphing and all the other sh*t that can be done now using digital tools, to make a good recording one had to rely on talented performers. In the end, I think that talent (what you are recording) is of much more concern than what you are recording it with. I would much rather be recording Keith Moon or John Lennon with a mono cassette recorder than “Enema Em” at Ocean Way! .. Kurt

anonymous Sun, 04/20/2003 - 11:14

Originally posted by Kurt Foster:

Originally posted by Han:
A Fostex G16/24 will give you a sound quality that's better than some 2" machines.

That would have to be a sorry assed sounding 2" machine. I have worked on Fostex G16 w/ Dolby S custom configured at the factory for 30 ips, and I think it sounded good.. but still no where as good as my MCI JH 24 2" did with a 16 track headstack on it @ 30 ips with no noise reduction (didn't need it). Stephen may have been speaking about acoustic guitar tracks or vocals but for deep bass, you gotta have that wide tape. Kurt LOL! That is true.

I don't care what SP says. Those narrow format machines suck major keister. The bleed is worse, the S/N is worse, the tape handling is way worse, you can't record as hot, and their bass bump is not very musical to me. I think that the Studer A80's, 800's and MCI's have the smoothest. most linear response over all. I used to have documentation of a comparison, with nearly every 2" machine made, side by side, set to factory specs, using 456. It was amazing how bad the Otari and Tascam 2" machines were.

anonymous Sun, 04/20/2003 - 11:15

These are all great machines and I would never give away one that was working but IMO the 2" format is the best. This has much to do with the fact that the electronics are better on the professional format machines as well as the added track width.

Kurt, I have two 2" machines, an old B16 and an MSR24S.

A while ago I had recorded a female singer/songwriter CD and a couple of songs needed more than 40 tracks, so the MSR came in. We tracked percussion, Hammonds and that sort of things to the MSR.

The record company decided to mix it in New York and because the studio there didn't have a 1" dolby S machine and couldn't rent one (?) I had to transfer the 1" tape to 2", which I did reluctantly because of the "generation loss".

Much to my surprice the 2" copy didn't sound worse, even a tad better. I think the better electronics had "overcompensated" the generation loss. Weird experience! :)

anonymous Mon, 04/21/2003 - 10:40

Originally posted by lowdbrent:

Originally posted by Kurt Foster:
Originally posted by Han:
A Fostex G16/24 will give you a sound quality that's better than some 2" machines.

That would have to be a sorry assed sounding 2" machine. I have worked on Fostex G16 w/ Dolby S custom configured at the factory for 30 ips, and I think it sounded good.. but still no where as good as my MCI JH 24 2" did with a 16 track headstack on it @ 30 ips with no noise reduction (didn't need it). Stephen may have been speaking about acoustic guitar tracks or vocals but for deep bass, you gotta have that wide tape. Kurt LOL! That is true.

I don't care what SP says. Those narrow format machines suck major keister. The bleed is worse, the S/N is worse, the tape handling is way worse, you can't record as hot, and their bass bump is not very musical to me. I think that the Studer A80's, 800's and MCI's have the smoothest. most linear response over all. I used to have documentation of a comparison, with nearly every 2" machine made, side by side, set to factory specs, using 456. It was amazing how bad the Otari and Tascam 2" machines were. Buddy, Stephen Paul made some comments about the quality of the Fostex G series a while ago and he was very impressed about this narrow format machine. There is not a more narrow format than a cassette. A Nakamichi 582 can sound amazingly good.

You can find some sound fragments on my website.
Jazz example 2 (The Troupe) was recorded with a Tascam MSR narrow format machine, a small Seck board and a number of dynamic mics. The whole band recorded at once in a small room. It was a CD of the month in a Hi Fi magazine and got te maximum score of 10 for sound quality.

Folk example 1 (Dockside) was recorded with the "bad sounding" Otari 2" machine.

Have a listen, hope you like the sound. My next machine will be a Studer 827 :D

Peace, Han

anonymous Tue, 04/22/2003 - 13:47

"The trick is to make it sound great when tracking. Get instrument placement in the mix using the room detail you never heard in analog. Lay off the EQ, compress to taste and use time and phase to move things in the mix if needed rather than a lot of panning...."..Could we expound on the "laying of the EQ" thing as well as moving things with phase? for example: Is EQ in the digital domain somewhat responsible for the destruction of high end frequency balance? How would you use "phase" to position something in a mix instead of panning?

anonymous Tue, 04/22/2003 - 13:53

"The trick is to make it sound great when tracking. Get instrument placement in the mix using the room detail you never heard in analog. Lay off the EQ, compress to taste and use time and phase to move things in the mix if needed rather than a lot of panning...."..

Could we expound on the "laying off the EQ" thing as well as moving things with phase? for example: Does EQ in the digital domain always destroy high end frequency levels, balance, etc.? How would you use "phase" to position something in a mix instead of panning?

Davedog Tue, 04/22/2003 - 16:30

I like my apples in same bowl as the oranges thank you....

I had a lot to add to this debate having used all of the equipment mentioned(at least the tape gear)but there doesnt seem to be any point.Have you looked at the prices of tape machines these days? You could easily find a very good conditioned 1" 16trk Otari for quite a bit less than a protools rig...the 2" machines are a bit different...most have resided in a pro working situation and most have a lot of miles on em...this means maintainence...expensive to find a tech who has the kind of knowledge to keep a machine going at its best.

Anyone in todays market wanting to do demo analog needs to be looking at these kinds of overheads before proceeding.You cannot buy a better sounding and trouble free machine for this than the Otari..The MS-16 Tascam is also a workhorse..not the sonic quality as the Otari but it can sound very very good.I have logged a thousand hours on one and can attest to its durability and sound.

You can spin your graphs and charts all you want about tape track width and bleed through and tape speed=sonic clarity, but it really gets down to the machine being aligned properly and the ability of the engineer to hit tape with a decent signal.
The absolute best sound I EVER heard from a tape machine was an old Ampex MM-1000 1" 8trk....you wanna talk bass?

JeffreyMajeau Tue, 04/22/2003 - 16:53

>Ampex MM1100

Sure, it's got bass. It's also a NIGHTMARE to maintain. And since they haven't been produced in a very long time, if you find one, you'll have to go through and completely recap/recondition the electronics before you can be SURE about it, IMHO.

The way to get good sound has always been done how Steve said: get it to sound good on the way down to multitrack, whatever format it is.

Before you mangle the crap out of the sound by futzing with EQ, MOVE THE STUPID MIC! An inch can make a HUGE difference. The old school guys who always do stuff that sounds amazing use compressors/eq/etc. as sparingly as possible. This comes partly from the discipline they had to learn before those things were so prevalent. EQ used to be an outboard box (Pultec anyone?). The best compressor is still a well-ridden fader.

You can be real resourceful when you don't have all those tools and you still have to deliver. Besides, we all know that the shorter your signal path, the better the sound, so why put all that junk in the signal chain when you can just get the sound in the simplest and most natural manner?

Dan Roth
Otitis Media

btw: Steve has done some GREAT sounding stuff. Monster guitar tone on the Coma stuff (they changed their name?). So, when do ya need an assist, Steve? :p

Davedog Wed, 04/23/2003 - 08:45

I personally would NOT recommend an Ampex MM-1000 to ANYONE and that was not my point to do so....they are a nightmare to maintain and as I stated, in deciding on an analog studio with tape, one has to take this very important cash outlay item into account.The original poster stated he wanted to RE-OPEN an existing building which had housed a recording studio and he wanted to go both digital and analog.My take(if you read it at all) was simply to consider analog tape machines that are noted for their quality of build and reputation for ease of maintainence rather than tape width for fidelity.Thus the 1" Otari recommendation.My statement about the Ampex was simply one of my experience with the sound.And again, I've recorded on all sorts of machines including 3m's, scully's,tascams,otari's,MCI's,and Ampex's and by a huge margin, the 1" Ampex 8 track had the 'BEST' sound of all.BUT its not a good choice for a beginning studio simply because of the 'overhead' involved.

JeffreyMajeau Wed, 04/23/2003 - 09:16

Davedog, sorry that I gave you the impression I was flaming you. Not my intent. I was just trying to persuade the poster that doing a studio with both analog and digital really means going with the BEST analog. You can get _passable_ analog decks for cheap now. You can even get really good ones with lots of hours cheap. Nobody ever seems to keep in mind that the things have lots of moving parts and old electronic components that will need to be at least checked and verified and then kept in proper operating conditions. Keeping up an analog studio is a large undertaking, IMHO.

The Ampex decks are cool though. For modern production, they may be a bit limited in their "tweakability" factor. They're not fast punchers, IIRC. That's a GOOD thing, I think, but it is a limiting factor.

Seriously though, a studio is less about the gear and more about the end product. Personally I'd keep the analog decks around but I'd probably invest in a digital setup like a PTHD. Make the live room sound good and make the control room as accurate as you can.

Customers are definitely a plus. A studios a chunk of single-purpose real estate that you really need to have demand for in your area before you jump into it. It's not the "field of dreams".

Dan Roth
Otitis Media

KurtFoster Wed, 04/23/2003 - 11:56

Five Foot,
Even the newer and better designed analog machines will require a lot of maintenance to stay running at their best. It takes a lot of oomph to start, stop and shuttle heavy rolls of 2" tape. Tape tension is critical and electronics drift requiring constant alignment. Just the physical act of adjusting the trim pots places stress on them, requiring replacement from time to time. High current power supplies burn out transistors and need adjusting occasionally for optimal performance. Short story, 2" machines are finely tuned machines that require a ton of maintenance at best. If you don't know how to perform this maintenance, it can be a deal breaker! The same can be said for large format consoles. High heat conditions are a result from the high currents that are required to produce the sound that we all covet but the trade off is that components burn out and fall out of tolerance at a high rate. All of this nice high end equipment requires a lot of maintenance. It is designed that way. Most high end studios have a qualified service tech on staff at all times. Sometimes two or even three! Without a tech on staff, a facility faces cancelled sessions, extended long periods of down time, customer complaints and eventually a loss of business.

DAW has offered a solution to all this by providing a high quality option for recording and mixing. A recordist that knows what they are doing can, with some nice “front end” microphones, mic pres, Eqs, and compressors, produce recordings that rival the “big guns”. While this has been a boon to home recordists, it has sounded the death knell for the smaller independent one and two person operations. There is no longer a steady stream of local talent and bands requiring a demo or a vanity project to be produced. Instead of spending that $2000 at the local small studio these people have decided to buy a computer or some other small recording rig and try to learn how to do this themselves at home. They reason that they can spend that one or two thousand buck once and then record many projects, many times. Often they wind up disappointed in the results but by then the cats out of the bag, the “moneys all been spent”.

The best advice I can offer is, forget the analog, the good stuff is financially impractical and the affordable stuff is at best second rate. I know you have a ½” machine already, but just the cost of a mixer patch bays and cabling to interface it justifies scrapping it! Spend your $4000 on a nice DAW set up, some mics and pres, perhaps a good compressor and don’t look back. That’s the best advice I can offer you! Kurt