We're gonna need more info to do anything else but guess, because it could be any number of problems.

It may be something as simple as a meter calibration.

It could be as involved as checking bias and alignment.

You also didn't mention if the meter was hot or shy playing back, and you didn't mention if there was an audio level boost or drop.

The more info provide, the more we can help.

Does it sound correct, meaning that it could be just a metering problem? Is it the same on all channels? Do the meters show the correct envelope of amplitude but simply at a greater or lesser level on playback, or is there a sticking-point above which the meters will not go?

A few things you can do to help us help you more:

Is it just one track, several tracks, odd tracks, even tracks or all tracks?

print a 1k test tone to the track(s) effected, record at 0db

playback, and check to see how far the meter(s) is off, either + or -

listen for an audible difference in the volume... is it playing back softer or louder?

listen for tonal differences... is the top end attenuated, muffled, etc.

are you using new tape?

are you noticing drop outs in recorded material?

is the db change consistent? Does it always happen and if it does is it always to the same degree?

DonnyThompson, post: 399897 wrote: A few things you can do to help us help you more:

Is it just one track, several tracks, odd tracks, even tracks or all tracks?

print a 1k test tone to the track(s) effected, record at 0db

playback, and check to see how far the meter(s) is off, either + or -

listen for an audible difference in the volume... is it playing back softer or louder?

listen for tonal differences... is the top end attenuated, muffled, etc.

are you using new tape?

are you noticing drop outs in recorded material?

is the db change consistent? Does it always happen and if it does is it always to the same degree?

I have recently had the Teac serviced, so I wasnt expecting stuff like this. The Ampex 456 I have isnt the "sticky shed" type either. As far as I can tell , there are no dropouts.
Also, where do I come by a 1k test tone?

You didn't mention what problems you had the deck serviced for... was it something specific like the issue you are having now? Was it just general maintenance?

If these metering issues weren't happening before the servicing, I'd certainly get it back to the service tech who did the work.

As far as your original post, You still haven't answered all the questions.

Test tones - you can either pick up a tone generator ( they are relatively cheap) ...or, I'd find it hard to believe that you couldn't find a simple 1 k test tone on youtube.

In any regard, again, the more info you can provide the more we can help you.

That's a nice machine and it's built pretty much like a tank. Though a machine of that vintage will start to have electronics issues with the drying up of electrolytic capacitors. This machine is from the 1980s. The electrolytic capacitors are very similar to rechargeable batteries and they have a finite lifespan just like rechargeable batteries do.

For those of us that enjoy this vintage stuff, it brings along with it, the need for technical knowledge so as to be able to maintain this old stuff. Much of the highly coveted recording equipment at major studios is of this vintage and earlier. But for proper and reliable studio operations, many hundreds of electrolytic capacitors have to be replaced, first and foremost as it is usually responsible for much of the electronic issues such as you've described without describing much LOL.

You say you don't have any sticky tape of 456? But I think you do. It might not be as severe as it is for other similar vintage recording tape? But we know otherwise. It's beginning to shed. And that shedding may only be apparent when it gathers in the gap of the head and clogs a single channel. And that will cause gross record and playback level variations along with poor frequency response. And it's no easy task swabbing the head down with 91% isopropyl alcohol. It's good to take a lot more Q-tips and heavy handed swabbing. It's hard to remove that which has glued itself into the gap. And this could be happening on either record or playback heads if not both. It frequently rears its ugly face more on the edge tracks such as 1 & 8. Where after some regular use, edge damage also occurs even without the shedding problem. And because this has very narrow track widths, compared to a professional deck, it makes the problem all the more worse. So you can only use the tape over and over again, so many times. Of course we never did that with clients. It was always fresh tape for clients. You would never rerecord over any tape, for clients. You wanted your tape to be as virginal as possible. So maybe you're just wearing your role of 456 out? Fleetwood Mac actually had that problem on the Rumors album. They ran their 24 track, 2 inch tape to the point of wearing it out. It then had to be transferred to a second 24 track machine onto a fresh roll of 2 inch tape. Making that 24 track master, now a second-generation down, less high frequency response and more noise.

I thought that album had a pleasant but somewhat diminutive mushy sound quality to it? I didn't know why it should sound that way until I found out many years later what had happened to them. Suffice it to say, I've never worn out any recording tape ever before myself. So in other words, they rewound and played it back obviously, more than 1000 times. And for a single album. Tape lasts a long time. But it doesn't last forever certainly not in professional release condition. And Boston's first album, in 1976, was tracked to a Scully, 1 inch 12 track. That was later taken to Westlake's studio in LA where it was then transferred to 2 inch 24 track. The drums were erased and replaced with new drum tracks recorded at Westlake, LA. So that held up a little better because the guitar tracks and the vocal tracks, didn't suffers greatly from ever being worn out, physically on the tape. And those don't have transient attacks that are more noticeable when they wear out and wipe off over time the little iron oxide particles.

Adjustment trim controls within the guts of this machine do have a tendency to get an accumulation of airborne particulate based pollution. This gathers on the trimmer adjustments and they go intermittent. And then they will go to all or nothing without being in between where you want them LOL. And when it comes to analog tape, if your playback is not calibrated to a standard reference laboratory made calibration reference tape, all bets are off. And those ain't cheap. Probably will cost you almost as much to obtain as is the worth and resale value of your 80-8?

And where it could be, that your heads are beginning to not only wear out but have developed grooves in the pathway of the tape? This is because heads have to be made from soft ferrous metals to be efficient. Which means they wear out easily and within a couple of thousand hours of use. And I think a machine of that age might likely be suffering from that? Luckily, sometimes this can be remedied preventing the need for replacement. And you literally take the heads off and grind them down, on a mirror with a piece of Emory cloth of varying grits, dry, not wet. And that's called re-lapping re-contouring the heads. They were designed for that. You can get away with doing that two or three times at least.

It's the grooves the tape wears into the heads that actually ends up damaging the edges of the tape. This provides poor response, it especially is noticeable in the high frequencies. That along with a wobbly continuous sound coming from the edge tracks. Once that happens, the tape is effectively destroyed. It'll never track properly again. And tape ain't cheap. It never has been. People complain about spending $150 for a 2 TB disk drive, that can hold a week's worth of continuous recording of 24 tracks without ever filling it up. 2 inch 24 track tape was $150 for 30 minutes of record time. 15 minutes if you wanted better quality at the higher speed. And so if you wanted to release an album of material how much would you need to spend on tape? And that usually exceeded the budget of the local bands. So they didn't have multiple takes they could simply composite together. They had one tape and you couldn't even get a whole album of material on one tape. So you would spend a minimum of $300 on tape just for one album. And where you couldn't spend more than $300 on studio time for the tracking and $300 for the mixing time. And that's what it cost most local bands just to release their vanity albums.

You haven't even indicated in your dearth of information where in the world you might be? You can get a/build a oscillator with parts from and available from Radio Shaft here in the US. Otherwise, the local music stores that carry musical instruments, recording stuff equipment will either have them or can order them. Sometimes many consoles and mixers have been built in. It's essential in our work. But you'll also need 10 kHz and 100 Hz at the very least. So generally, you purchase a test bench, sine wave generator. You might even want a function generator that can deliver square waves to look at on your oscilloscope? Much I think is a little bit beyond your scope LOL? If you had a scope? It's not in your bathroom. And it's not on your tripod in your backyard, tilted up. Nor is it connected to your rifle. You're looking at it, right now. See? And you're also looking at your sine wave and square wave oscillator. What I was describing earlier is what we did before we had computers. Even shareware audio software frequently has the ability to generate different types of audio oscillations. Sine waves, square waves, triangle waves, sawtooth waves, modulated waves, sweep frequencies. And then Bobby Moog got this great idea! But he had problems concentrating with that dog always ARPing, next door.

You should also know that TE-AC rubber pinch rollers also like any other machine, dry up. And when they do, it can cause tape to skew up and down on the heads so as to cause gross mis-tracking. So there is a myriad of possibilities of what could be wrong? Perhaps the holdback tape tension has sagged due to the aging of the reeling motors? And that will cause mistracking and poor head to tape contact making for less than adequate results?

And you might possibly be using DBX noise reduction which will cause a twofold deterioration overall from a poorly adjusted and maintained, recorder. Making things four times as bad as they should be.

So if you need technical assistance, it has to be more than " mommy I boo-booed ".
Mx. Remy Ann David

My understanding of this problem with the Ampex 456 and even some reports of the Quantegy 456 was one of sticky/shed no matter what the storage was like. even some 499 which was supposed to have a different binder than 456 or the BASF. The way its been explained to me was the EPA (government intrusive a---holes) would not let a particular type of chemical be used in the binder formula for certain tapes being manufactured during this time (late 80's-90's) and it has resulted in this gummy problem for ALL 456 formula based tape. An industry unto itself has been created just for replacing all the viable recordings made on this product onto better and unaffected product.

I know this because I currently am restoring masters I made back in the day on 456. (I'M not doing it per se....having it done) The baking has begun! Long live the baking! I have a few 16track 1" multis to go also.Gotta finish up those projects that never got done due to all kinds of stuff.....

Actually Dave, the problem began back in the 1970s. Almost immediately after the EPA was founded. I don't think that 206/406 stock has suffered as much as the 226/227/250 Scotch and Ampex 456 on. But hey, the same thing happened to Agfa and that was in Germany. Same crap with the tape. The only place it wasn't happening was in Japan. Just try to find some 1/2 inch-2 inch tape in Japan LOL. 1/4 inch no problem. Maxell good. Sony good. No flat black back coating on those.

The flat black back coating was also carbon-based. It sheds also. It was found to add stiffness to the tape providing more consistent packing and travel across the heads. It was a stability factor. But that too spewed junk forth onto your heads that gathered upon the iron oxide side. These more environmentally friendly binders a.k.a. glue, were a urethane base. And it did go through rigorous torture tests that all of the tape manufacturers performed. We were told it would last 100 years. It didn't last 10. And that's theory vs. practice. It's sad that these PhD's screwed up as bad as they did LOL. They all screwed up. On both sides of the pond. From the greatest generation to the Third Reich... And all of us baby boomers have to clean up after our parents now. LOL. My mother couldn't even get me to clean my bedroom. And while my recordings will all be clean... my bedroom is still a mess.

Sometimes things don't change over time LOL.
Mx. Remy Ann David

RemyRAD, post: 400000 wrote: Actually Dave, the problem began back in the 1970s. Almost immediately after the EPA was founded. I don't think that 206/406 stock has suffered as much as the 226/227/250 Scotch and Ampex 456 on. But hey, the same thing happened to Agfa and that was in Germany. Same crap with the tape. The only place it wasn't happening was in Japan. Just try to find some 1/2 inch-2 inch tape in Japan LOL. 1/4 inch no problem. Maxell good. Sony good. No flat black back coating on those.

The flat black back coating was also carbon-based. It sheds also. It was found to add stiffness to the tape providing more consistent packing and travel across the heads. It was a stability factor. But that too spewed junk forth onto your heads that gathered upon the iron oxide side. These more environmentally friendly binders a.k.a. glue, were a urethane base. And it did go through rigorous torture tests that all of the tape manufacturers performed. We were told it would last 100 years. It didn't last 10. And that's theory vs. practice. It's sad that these PhD's screwed up as bad as they did LOL. They all screwed up. On both sides of the pond. From the greatest generation to the Third Reich... And all of us baby boomers have to clean up after our parents now. LOL. My mother couldn't even get me to clean my bedroom. And while my recordings will all be clean... my bedroom is still a mess.

Sometimes things don't change over time LOL.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Wow! So much complexity. Maybe an option for me is to use the Teac to record and get that "sound", and go buy a decent digital 8 track recorder to directly bounce all the tracks onto from the Teac. Then I assume I could mix the tracks down to my hearts content without contending with all the problems the Teac might pose. What do you think? Is this a good option?

It's certainly an option but only if the machine is properly tweaked.

The tweaking can be fudged. And here's what I might recommend. We're going to assume here that no one has opened the machine and screwed with the playback alignment adjustment potentiometers? Likely it has been tweaked in the past with a standard laboratory reference calibration tape. So we'll assume that if they play head is in good condition, you won't be tweaking anything in the playback electronics, no, don't do it. There is both playback head level and higher frequency equalizer adjustments. So we'll just assume playback is calibrated. (That's dangerous LOL)

OK so playback is calibrated. This only leaves you to tweak record bias, level and higher frequency equalization. So we're going to tweak the machine to wherever the playback has been previously set right or wrong.

The simple next step is to use your audio software to generate a 500 Hz or 1 kHz sine wave (not modulated). So now we're using the computer as the sine wave oscillator and as a kind of modern-day real-time broad range oscilscope. So your computer audio interface output will be feeding the recorder channels 1-8 inputs. The output channels of the machine will be reconnected back to the input of your computer audio interface device. Kind of like doing an overdub. But we are instead basically overdubbing sine waves that you will return to the computer and record on an adjacent track. In the computer.

Our goal here on the machine is to make input equal output. You will put your tape on and place the machine into record and roll record. Now here is a hitch/monkeywrench in doing this. The output of your computer audio interface likely produces +4 DB at 1.23 V at 500-1 kHz. The machine does not want to see that high a level. It wasn't designed for standards studio +4 DB professional levels. It was designed to be fed from one of their lower output Pro-consumer mixers. And they created their own standard of which they had two that were not the same as what we were using in the United States and elsewhere around the world. This is the problem with this Asian built equipment. Their standard became .3 V for a zero VU input. Their other standard was 1 V for a zero VU input and output. And not the well-established 1.23 V for +4 or .775 V for actual zero. Which can make alignment on these machines all the more confusing.

Again the goal is to have input match output. The 500 or 1 kHz reference sine wave establishes your input output and playback from tape operating levels. The meters have their own calibration adjustments. Don't touch those at all. (Not all machines have meter adjustments, although some do. I can't remember that machine specifically?) So whatever the output of your computer audio interface is will just be arbitrary to align machine.

On the machine, while in record mode, you have the source monitor switch. You can monitor what is going in and you can monitor what is coming off the playback head barely 80 ms later. So, you might need to have an external potentiometer on the output of your computer audio interface when you generate these tones so as not to overload the inputs on your recorder. What we want to see when you are in input record monitor and is the meter at zero VU with 500 Hz or 1 kHz, either one of those. When you observe zero VU on the machine while monitoring the input source, you will switch the button on the machine to monitor the playback head tape source. You'll see the level change on the meter most likely. I might be higher? It might be lower than zero on the meter? This is where you will find the record level calibration adjustment. While monitoring playback source, you will change the record level trim control so that you are viewing zero VU from playback source off the playback head while rolling in record. You do this across all eight channels. So that when the input monitor meter indicates a zero, the playback monitor metering will indicate same at 500 Hz or 1 kHz. Now on to the bias adjustment.

For the bias, there is a number of ways to do this. We will be using 10 kHz. So ya have to tell your computer to now generate a track full of nothing but a 10 kHz sine wave (not modulated), pure. You will then observe zero VU at 10 kHz input source monitor on the meters of the machine. Switch to playback monitor to observe the 10 kHz coming off of the play head. You then need to locate the bias adjustment potentiometer for that channel. While observing the 10 kHz at the input and watching the 10 kHz, From the playback head, you will begin to rock that bias adjustment counterclockwise and clockwise. What you are looking for is for a peak level of that 10 kHz Playing back. Reduce the bias too much and it will drop. Increase the bias too much and it will drop. Find the peak. The peak will likely be above or below the zero VU indication on the meter. That's OK but for convenience, you can readjust the record level control so that your peak at 10 kHz is sitting right at zero VU. Good. Now... slowly increase clockwise, the bias adjustment potentiometer. You want to 10 kHz to drop by 2 DB when you increase the bias, clockwise on the adjustment potentiometer. You have now properly set the bias level.

Now you have to go back to 500 Hz or 1 kHz and make sure you have zero VU while in source input monitoring. Now switch to Playback source monitoring. Adjust your record level control to re-attaining 0 VU. Good. You are now recording at the proper operating level.

Now switch again to 10 kHz. The upper level from your computer audio interface device must be consistent between the mid-frequency tones of 500 Hz or 1 kHz with reference to 10 kHz. They cannot be at different levels. You'll switch your machine from input source monitor at 1 kHz to playback source monitor off of the playback head, while the tape is still rolling in record. You'll adjust your record level trim control in the machine to get zero VU from the playback. When you switch to 10 kHz, you'll switch the machine back to input source monitor. Verify that the meter is still at zero VU. Then switch the machine again into tape source playback monitor while it is still rolling in record. 10 kHz should be at zero VU on playback. If not? You will not touch the bias control. You will find the high frequency record equalizer and either increase that or decrease that to obtain zero VU at 10 kHz on playback while still rolling in record mode. This is how you do real-time adjustments on analog machines that have three heads. All did except for the Scully 100, 2 inch 16 track machine. But that's the only one that didn't have three heads. More about that later.

So now you've gotten the most important part of the machine tweaked zero VU at 500 Hz or 1 kHz will also be zero VU at 10 kHz. These of the frequencies we use for adjustment purposes of analog recorders. Now you can go ahead and make your audio software generate 100 Hz at zero VU. To be observed at zero VU with the machine in input source monitoring. Good. Now switch the machine again to playback source monitoring while you are still rolling in record mode. Look to see how close 100 Hz is to zero VU? It might be slightly higher it might be slightly lower? And I believe on that machine, you will find some low-frequency playback equalizers. They won't be on the record side. You'll adjust the playback low-frequency equalizers to get zero VU at 100 Hz just as you did at 1000 Hz and at 10,000 Hz. And this will ensure that your machine has as flatter response as can be reasonably expected from that machine.

Provided you have done this well, you can go ahead and run a full broadband frequency response verification. Create a 50 Hz sine wave and check that. Check 250 Hz. Check 5 kHz. Check 10 kHz. Check 15 kHz. And don't freak out when you check 20 kHz it will be down probably around -3 on that machine? They used to indicate their frequencies response for their sheens as " +2/-3 20 Hz-20,000 Hz. And it is just that. The response goes up and down throughout the full range enough to get you seasick. Which is what made these things miserable sounding with DBX noise reduction. The DBX noise reduction would make the response of the machine +4/-6 from 20 Hz to 20 kHz. Well that's awful! And it will drastically affect your mix and your sound. Though it is livable for pro-hobby enthusiast's because that's all you can expect. It won't be flat. You'll be lucky if it's flat. Some are. Most aren't. Though you might be pleasantly surprised?

One does not need to always do Playback calibration alignments every time you do your record alignments. That's not necessary. It was only necessary for the big studios when 24 track tapes were going from one studio to another. And every professional engineer could start a recording session by printing 1 kHz at zero VU, 10 kHz at zero VU. And 100 Hz at zero VU. This allowed us to calibrate the machine to whatever the other previous studio had calibrated their machines to. This had to be done for professional consistency throughout an albums construction. Especially as it was passed from hit studio to the next hit studio, lather, rinse and repeat.

So when everything is done in-house, in a single studio, your machine only needs to be tweaked every time you change tape brands and formulations. Which most home studios don't really know to do? Or not do?

This is a hack away to calibrate a machine to itself. You have to do that if you don't have a reference laboratory playback calibration alignment tape. And we can only hope that the play head has not plain worn out or been misaligned? Another way to verify that you have done a good calibration is to simply remove the tape that you have recorded the tones on. Flip the tape over and play it backwards. Whatever the differences are you'll see by variations in the levels on playback. This may also aid you in discovering any terrible discrepancies that may have occurred due to the age of the machine?

The hands have alignment screws on top of them which I would not recommend that you touch at all. Don't do it. Aligning heads is an art. And it's tricky as hell to get right. We have to jump through all sorts of other hoops to do that. You cannot do it without the reference laboratory calibration alignment tape. So don't even try.

Head azimuth adjustment is generally the only adjustment that is ever touched during standard alignment procedures. The other adjustments are there for when you have to replace the head or re-lap a.k.a. re-contour the head. This is necessary to do, when you have observed that the heads have grooves cut into them by the tape. This groove will damage and destroy the tape. You've got to get rid of the groove in the head. And that means removing the entire head assembly and removing each head individually. Then ya have to remove the mu metal shield until you just have this little piece of crap in your hand. And that's where the mirror and the Emory cloth/cloths come in. But this is not for a beginner to even try. And if you were to try it, you should do it with a crappy worn out disposable head from a trashed machine. And I'm not going to go into the fine points of the procedure because I'm worn out already LOL. There's a lot of blather I've been blowing through. And head adjustments, replacement and restoration is only meant to be performed by a professional person who knows how to do so. Otherwise you will destroy your heads, guaranteed. It's boring and a laborious process. You get to watch the grass grow while doing it. If you don't smoke it all first LOL? God knows I have.

Of course this is just a quick fast dirty way to do it at home. Certainly not what I would do on a professional level. But it is basically the way that we went about tweaking the 24 track machines prior to sessions for those hit recordings. When on the test bench, you would use third harmonic distortion analyzers, vacuum tube voltmeters, calibration tapes, a virgin tape. Spring loaded scales and special tension adjustment meters all sorts of stuff. And that was performed during the heavy duty maintenance and/or replacements of heads, motors, etc.. But in the studio control room, we would use oscillator and our calibration tapes and just do it from the machines VU meters. Close enough for rock 'n roll. You only needed to be ± .5 DB in, accuracy. And really the machine was considered flat if it was ± 2 DB from 50 to 15,000 Hz. Which is the accepted NAB standard in the US. But these machines were far better than that. They were pretty much ruler razor blade flat not like you're 80-8 LOL. Which allowed the engineer and producer to obtain what they wanted and not what the machine was going to deliver LOL. And that's what separated the men from the toys. But those toys can do a great job and they have. Just don't get upset if the frequency response is not flat. It's not going to be. Not on their machines. And they tell ya that. Especially for all you guys that listen with your eyes you might be grossly put off by what these machines deliver?

One of the other very important aspects of any analog recorder is a propensity for the playback head to easily become magnetized. The record and the erase heads do not suffer from this as much because of the current being pumped through them, basically makes them self demagnetizing. Nothing is pumped through the playback head. So it is more highly susceptible to becoming magnetized. And if you travel with this machine in a north-south direction, wherever you are, it will magnetized the heads from the Earth's own magnetic field. This doesn't happen when you travel east or west with these machines. Nevertheless, the heads need to be occasionally de-magnetized. And there's a very specific procedure for that. Otherwise, you're going to do more harm than good. But this residual magnetization of the playback head and any of the heads will actually cause erasure of the high frequency response that you have already recorded upon the tape. And it will introduce additional noise. Blah!

If you like further information and would like to talk to me about this, please feel free to give me a call at 202-239-7412 and leave a message for the best time for me to return your call. I will not pick up this phone as it is my answering service.

This type of tweaking overall, takes a little while to get the hang of properly. It will greatly affect the way your analog machine will perform or not perform LOL.

I'd like to be brief but this is not a subject that can be briefly expressed.

So when you want to use this machine, in combination with your mostly digital production ITB, one can just track your basic tracks of drums, guitar, keyboards, vocals to the machine. You can of course then rewind the machine to be able to transfer it, all eight tracks at the same time, into your computer. However, doing it this way I do not feel to be the most ideal way to go about this? It really depends on whether you are the band or you have a bad?

Let's say, you've got the band set up? The machine has the tape loaded and is ready to go. Your digital recorder is set up and ready to go. Here is what ya do. Assign the drums to four tracks. Bass guitar on five. Lead guitar on six. Single keyboard feed on seven or seven and eight. Roll the analog machine in record. Switch the machine to the playback head tape monitor position and roll your digital multitrack machine. So as the band plays the tracks are recorded and 80 ms after they are recorded they are transferred to the digital machine for your basic rhythm tracking session. This will cut your wow & flutter in half. And you will get no what is referred to as " print through ". Because print through, you've heard on a famous old Led Zeppelin record LOL. Because the tape as these magnetic particles already aligned when you records, as the tape tax on to itself, those magnetic particles on one strip of tape will print through to the next layer of tape both before and after. Creating pre-echoes and post-echoes that you will here cut through the background tape noise quite easily. And the hotter you record the worse it gets. But it's the whole point of recording a hot signal that creates that desirable saturation sound especially on drum transients and even when the bass guitar player pops a string. When a singer sings loud. All that stuff. And you can't get rid of it once it's there.

So by recording on the machine and playing back simultaneously from the machine while transferring it to the digital machine avoids that.

When you want to do your overdubs the procedure will be different. The analog machine cannot/will not hold synchronization with your digital stuff. Not even close. And you can use the above real-time technique, only a few have a monitoring situation that is not normal. You can't let any singer or any other musician hear themselves coming off the analog machine playback head. It'll be about 80 ms too late LOL. So whoever is doing the overdubbing can only monitor themselves directly from the console or mixer. Then when once printed to the digital recorder, you are going to need to transfer that track and all the rest, into the software. It's in the software where you will be able to that 80 ms timing differential to be back in sync with everything else. And in doing it that way, the analog machine will always remain synchronous to the track in the computer. You can't do it by recording rewinding and playing back. Not possible. Not with that machine at any rate. It was with the $36,000 variety machines where external synchronizers and SMPTE timecode was utilized. And that was another $5000. And you're not going there LOL. Not yet. Not with that machine. And basically what that recently released CLASP system was designed to do in conjunction with your ProTools. And that was another $5000 and it required something like a Studer 24 track or Ampex or MCI or 3M. All with highly sophisticated DC servo controlled capstan motors and sophisticated logic controlled tape transport functions. Not something you find on a 80-8. But you can really still do the same thing with the technique that I have described and achieve the same results as something that cost over $40,000 to do. Well today you might be able to get away at $15,000 LOL? Right. You're not going to go there. Not until after ya get your first hit and have signed your contract with the producer and the record label.

See it's easy?
Mx. Remy Ann David

I should charge for this? I do charge for this LOL. I was an authorized, factory trained, service technician for Ampex, 3M, MCI/Sony and I was Scully's Quality Control Manager 1979/80. And I still have the same phone number I've had since 1981 that ends in REEL (7335) a custom phone number I requested a long time ago LOL. And then now resides on my cell phone and is no longer my landline. Because this is what I did for many years. I worked on everything. The Stephens was one of the most bizarre, complicated machines but it was oh so sweet and easy on the tape. A beautiful transport and fabulous electronics John Stephens designed. And he's another extremely sad story. He recently passed on.

I'm actually a world authority on analog magnetic tape recording. I was truly fascinated by analog tape recording by the time I was seven. And I've been working on them for the past 50 years. I'm 57. OMG! My goodness. I actually had to correct J. McKnight who manufactured the world's best standard reference laboratory calibration alignment tapes LOL.

While I was working for Scully, we used his calibration tapes. We had special tapes that he made for us. They're not like the kinds I normally sells to studios. And he made one small change in a batch of tapes he had shipped us. (This is how important and critical these tapes are). The new batch indicated that none of our brand-new 280 B, stereo machines, which at the time were $2500 new without a cabinet. Suddenly, none of the new machines could pass specifications? How could this be??? OMG? What's happening? I had to figure this out! I did. It wasn't our machines. The old worn-out tapes (we would regularly change them out every couple of months) indicated the machine was up to specifications from the worn-out tape. Put on the new tape and high-frequency response was down as much as 6 DB or more? WTF? It had to be his tapes. So I called him up and told him. I indicated that I saw the change that he had made in the specialized calibration tapes. I told him it was wrong. What happened next blew my mind!

He proceeded to call me all sorts of nasty things LOL. And told me I didn't know what the F I was talking about! And he slammed the phone and hung up on me. The next day, the front office told me I had a phone call. The only person who knew I was working at Scully at the time was my mother. She was taking care of her elderly mother and I just knew that grandma had died. It was J. McKnight LOL. He was profusely apologetic to me. He had expressed that he had made this change but did not think it would affect our test procedures? He said I'd been absolutely right. He shipped us brand-new tapes and no more problems. Not every day a high school dropout can trump the world authority on laboratory reference calibration alignment tapes ya know?

It's all in the cards.
Mx. Remy Ann David

It doesn't matter what you start or end with, if the Teac isn't working properly.

Yes. Tape decks require maintenance, of this there is no doubt. Bias, alignment, cleaning, degaussing, pinch roller and capstans, motors...that's the nature of that beastie... or anything with moving parts or electronics that heat up.

As opposed to a DAW, where you pretty much just simply open a new project file, insert and assign new tracks, set your sampling/bit rate, check your gain chain and hit "R".

Tape can be very nice in its treatment of audio... and you certainly wouldn't be the first to implement tape as a part of their production chain to get the desired results that tape can offer.

However, the rub here is that the tape machine has to be working properly.

If you've got biasing, alignment or electronics problems on that deck, then you're not going to get what you want, regardless of whether you start with tape and end with digital... or vice versa.

fwiw
-d.

So if I had the Teac working properly, which digital 8 track would you recommend I buy?. Its not really intended for professional use, just demos really, for my band.

frosty55, post: 400018 wrote: ...Maybe an option for me is to use the Teac to record and get that "sound", and go buy a decent digital 8 track recorder to directly bounce all the tracks onto from the Teac. Then I assume I could mix the tracks down to my hearts content without contending with all the problems the Teac might pose. What do you think? Is this a good option?

My suggestion is that you look for an Alesis HD24XR or a JoeCo Black Box unit where you can record all your channels digitally, but also T-off 8 of them to go into the Teac. You would take the replay head outputs to 8 more channels on the digital recorder. When you run the tape, the sound goes on to tape via the record head and comes off again a few tens of milliseconds later via the replay head, and you record it all on the digital recorder. It's a simple matter to shift those 8 tracks forward in time in a workstation to line up with the direct tracks. You would then have both direct and via-tape versions of your tracks, and you choose what sonics you like at mixdown.

Boswell is describing the way I do it. And that's the premium way to do it. What he was also saying is that through a series of signal routing, you would have eight Digital Master tracks and eight analog tracks, transferred in real time, simultaneously to eight additional digital tracks. Because this is done in real time, without rewinding the tape and playing it back in, the analog tracks will be in tight lock step synchronization to the digital tracks. But because of the distance between the record and the play head on the machine, those analog tracks will be approximately 80 ms late. But because they were recorded simultaneously to the digital recorder along with the digital tracks coming off of the mixer, you find some noticeable percussive drum peak smack, to use as a synchronization point. And then you just take those digital tracks of the analog machine and simply match them to the direct digital track peak. This requires you to zoom in to the waveforms in your software, right down to the sample level of one 48,000 th, of the second zoom. And you'll be golden. You'll be cooking with gas. You'll be cuttin' the rug.

Unfortunately, that prescribed manner of doing it will likely set you back $1500-$3500 for that multitrack, hard disk-based digital recorder. Doesn't sound like you have that kind of budget? So if not? Here are your other alternatives.

The first and easiest would be to find a used ALESIS ADAT, VHS-based digital recorder. Lots of these on eBay. Mostly around the $250 budget. You can expect repairers, failures, dropouts and perhaps a very short life? It will also require not just any VHS tape. IT MUST BE S-VHS tapes. Which you won't find any longer at your average store and never did to begin with. Generally, you had to order these. And they're virtually impossible to find today. And not cheap.

Second possibility? The TA-SCAM DA-38/88/98's. These used metal particle Hi 8 tapes. Which you can still find at the big box stores and drugstores, elsewhere. (Not to be confused with the Hi 8, " metal evaporated ", tapes. Don't use those.) And you will find scads of these also on eBay. They also hover around that $250 price. Again though, I've had those machines since 1993. And those can be just as awful as you could possibly imagine? And all but the 98 are 16-bit, not 24 bit. And then you need yet more special tapes that are no longer available are almost impossible to find, to have 24-bit. Otherwise it defaults back to 16-bit with only the other tapes not made by Fuji. So that's a can of worms. And I have found those heads to fail with around 850 hours of use. That's about 3000 hours less than you get from an analog machine. Repairs cost upwards of $600 to replace them. Same for the ALESIS.

So the most economical way to go would be with something like a Pre-Sonus Fire Studio, FireWire-based, computer audio interface that can accept 8 simultaneous XLR microphones or, 8 1/4 inch line level inputs that you would need to use from your analog machine to the computer audio interface. It is also supplied with an absolutely phenomenal and incredible 600-$1000 software bundle that blows so many others away. And those devices cost around $500 brand-new at your local music stores. If you are using a desktop computer without a FireWire card? You can purchase a FireWire card some of which are as little as $15 up. And you just plug it in to the computer. If you're using a laptop? Older laptops had, some of them, FireWire ports albeit 4 pin rather than the standard larger 6 pin connector. Adapter cables are available at your computer store or online. And if you want to do the simultaneous direct digital capture along with the simultaneous analog to digital capture, you could purchase two of those devices as FireWire ports generally have between 2-4 input ports on the plug-in cards for the desktop machines. With my laptop, it has the internal four pin FireWire connector. Plus I was also able to plug in a PCM-CIA card that allowed me two additional FireWire inputs. Unfortunately, new laptops today don't have either of those features. A company called Pinnacle/Avid, made a device that would allow you to plug in your FireWire camcorder to a USB 2.0 input on your computer. And I believe that device is still available at some computer stores or online? I haven't tried this myself but I bet it would work in an audio application? Because it's still FireWire. I can't be certain because I haven't tried. I don't need to spend the money for the gizmo since I have computers that still have FireWire ports both laptop and desktop machines. But this is really the only choices you have in regards to these external 8 input, computer audio interface devices. There are others, by other manufacturers, and rely upon the USB 2.0 protocol. And any modern computer can deal with that. I'm really not sure which one is are made by which manufacturers because I've had no personal need for that. So it's not something I've looked deeply into. Nevertheless, those too, are out there. Some even have the ability to accommodate more than 8 simultaneous inputs.They'll generally have 8 combo XLR/1/4 inch microphone inputs and additional 1/4 inch inputs. USB 2.0 can handle 16 channel simultaneous capture. In fact it can handle more than that. And so can a FireWire. USB 3.0 and the new Apple Thunderbolt devices can handle nearly 10 times more than that. But that's yet so new that there are really no affordable interfaces to your computer as yet.

Bottom line, really, the only place this analog machine is going to shine, if it shines at all, is on the drum tracks. The bass guitar will likely be loaded with " bias rocks " which sounds like the bass guitar is being dragged through gravel. Vocals, which are generally the lead, will be noisy and mushy sounding. Electric guitar? Not so horrible. Because really the only reason to do the analog thing, is for that SATURATION, that you get from drums, when you go to analog tape. And that's really the only advantage that you will be able to glean from that machine. Professional wider track format machines don't suffer quite as badly as that 80-8. And they have much flatter responses. Much lower noise.

And really, when I've done similar things, I don't want my vocal on the analog machine. I don't want my bass guitar on the analog machine. Because it really makes them substandard. Though you can still have fun with it. You'll find out for yourself.

Good luck with your endeavor.
Mx. Remy Ann David

These recorders surely are for the pro market arent they? I need something cheap and straightforward, if theres such a thing.

And I have found those heads to fail with around 850 hours of use.

You actually got 850 hours out of a DA 88? Lucky you, ;) I think I managed 680... once.

Back to the topic...

Personally I think your best bet is to look at a dedicated DAW. If you have a computer (obviously you do) and it's fairly recent in processor/speed/power/etc., all you'll need, as Remy mentioned, is an Audio I/O of some kind with good mic pre's, and a production/recording platform - Pro Tools, Sonar, Cubase, Reaper, etc.

The nice thing about having a computer-based platform is that you have:

1. Limitless numbers of tracks * (*dependant on processor, ram, HD storage capacity, etc.)
2. The ability to edit, shuffle, slip, slide, tweak, twist, or watusi those tracks imported or layed-over from an analog source - like your Teac.
3. Most - if not all - of these programs come with stock digital effects and processors bundled in (reverbs, delays, compressors, etc).
4. The option to add/buy more processors and effects, as well as virtual instruments/soft synths including drums, synths, pads, stabs, and virtual amps like Amplitube
5. While I don't use it, you can get pitch correction software, like Melodyne or Antares
6. With the right midi I/O or audio I/O that includes a sync I/0, you could also sync your tape machine to your PC via SMPTE - if you don't mind burning a track on your deck for the code. This could prove helpful in laying over those analog tracks to your PC/DAW

I'm not saying that the Alesis HD deck suggested by Boswell is a bad thing, to the contrary, it's a very nice piece. I've been seriously considering one for live remote work.

But... if you want to edit or slip those tracks into alignment, you'll need some kind of editing software in which to do this, and being that the DAW programs do so much more than that, you might as well look into a program that will let you multi track recording and production from start to finish - and assuming you already have a computer that is current or powerful enough to handle digital audio recording, then you're already halfway there. All you need to do is to add a good multi-input USB audio I/O, choose your production program, and you're off and running.

IMHO, of course.
-d.

No, those recorders were not intended for the pro-market. They were intended for your market, the consumer home studio market. While people released and pressed their own vinyl records, those are what we call " Vanity Albums ". It's not on any record label other than your own i.e. Frosty55 records.And so, in that respect, they could be considered professional recorders even though they aren't. I've had a 38 years ago, FOSTEX 16 half-inch. And in comparison to an actual professional recorder such as an Ampex, Scully, 3M, MCI, Studer, it sounds like total CRAP. But you work with what you have the best you can. And you squeeze every little db you can out of that sucker. Which is why the alignment is so important. And if you do not know how to align and analog machine be it consumer like yours or pro like mine (Scully etc.), it won't matter how good the machine is. So if you want that machine to sound the best it can, you're going to have to spend a few dollars and purchase that reference laboratory calibration alignment tape because there isn't any other option. And that head demagnetizer. And an accurate laboratory style voltmeter. Third octave distortion analyzer or THD distortion analyzer. Spectrum analyzer. And a few years under your belt doing it. Otherwise it's just a toy to play with. Perfectly fine for the average basement recording enthusiast to have fun and learn with. Not saying it cannot be used professionally, they have been used professionally when they have been professionally maintained. You're not there yet. But you're getting close.

So try some of those tweaking suggestions I've provided for you. Bottom line criteria is that whatever is going in should sound the same way coming out and all at the same volume level. And you can hear that difference without any test equipment at all. You can even tune these things when you get to know what you're doing, virtually by ear. And I have. And I do, because there is yet another technique that relies upon just that. And which you cannot do unless you have a certain kind of scientific laboratory function generator, capable of delivering different types of extremely low distortion waveforms of different types. Because the frequency that is required is below 20 Hz. It's 10 Hz. And audio equipment does not pass 10 Hz. And it's its inability to pass that 10 Hz that allows you to tweak the machine by ear, with headphones on, not through speakers. And to get the cleanest sounding low-end you'll ever hear come off of an analog machine. And few people know how to do this. But you still need that playback reference calibration tape first. To make certain that the machine is performing up to snuff.

Do not feel bad by what I have talked about here. I am a maintenance technician as well as an incredible audio engineer. However... most recording engineers are not maintenance engineers. And most maintenance engineers are not recording engineers. I'm just one of those folks that happens to highly exceed at both. In fact I know a lot of recording engineers that can hardly wire their own three connection microphone cables without screwing it up. So don't be hard on yourself regarding this 80-8. It's still a great machine. And you'll make lovely recordings with it that sound like they came from the 1970s and early 1980s. It just won't have the same kind of flat response, low noise, low wow & flutter, distortion specifications and the wide open sound that you get from the wider track widths of professional machines and wider tapes. It cannot deliver that sound. It does however still deliver that analog sound with that magical saturation for drum tracks. And it's actually required of you to over record the level of the drums to get that saturation. At least the saturation amount that you want. Too little and it's not there. Too much and it's unlistenable.

Back in the day, the professional machines, could have their meters banging to the right and it would sound out of this world. When you did that on drum tracks. But you'd also want to monitor while recording, from the playback head (without passing that out to their headphones) to dial in just the right amount of overload saturation. Sometimes more. Sometimes less. As a generally also pertains to the genre of the song and music. You don't do it on everything. You do it on some things. And that's what all the big time engineers still want, still get and why so many recordings today, and the big luxurious million-dollar studios, are still recording on 24 track, 2 inch analog tape. And a lot of those machines also have noise reduction such as Dolby SR. Which certainly ain't Dolby S. And it's not A either. And where also, few folks used DBX I, on their 24 track machines. They all used Dolby A, until finally, we got SR. Because while A worked well, it also affected the sound that nobody appreciated. And people jumped through hoops with other equipment to undo what the Dolby A did to their sound. And that was called the APHEX Aural Exciter. A lowly technical mistake that made everything better. It would add the right kind of distortion enhancing upper harmonic content that wasn't cutting through the Dolby A. So they added distortion to make it sound better. And we don't really need that thing anymore though it still has its place when you use it on certain things very very sparingly. Goofballs like yourself turn the thing up way too much making things sound really nasty, really really nasty. I mean who would think of turning the knob up only to one half of 1? Out of 10. You want to get your moneys worth and make things sound like those hit recordings. So ya turn the gizmo up. WRONG.

So this discussion we are having now is both about audio engineering, tips and tricks and maintenance. This is a lot to cover and it doesn't come from just a couple of posts on a website. It takes years to get good and proficient at anything. It takes years to become a doctor. It takes years to become a lawyer. It takes years to become a good musician. And it takes years to become a competent and informed professional of any kind. There is nothing natural about making natural sounding recordings when it comes to pop music. In fact it's just the opposite. You do all sorts of unnatural things (not in front of youngsters) with all sorts of goofy things... just to make the recordings sound... natural. This is not necessarily the case when, say, you are recording an entire Symphony Orchestra, with a choir and solo operatic singers. We don't screw around with that type of recording.

Those types of recordings really do require a very different process than that of pop music, obviously. With pop music, I've even used crazy things like one dollar Radio Shaft suction cup telephone pickups. Piezoelectric buzzers as acoustic guitar pickups, drum triggers, contact microphones. And I've even used Radio Shaft microphones, costing only $40, right next to my $3300 German condenser microphones. So in the hands of professionals, we can do all sorts of amazing things that would be considered quite unconventional to others. But it's not. It's audio engineering at its best. However, put a scalpel in the hands of a 10-year-old and what do you think is going to happen? Or an audio oscillator? Or a voltmeter? Do you have that important 600 ohm resistor you're going to need? I can tell you, you won't find it at Radio Shaft. You will find 620. But you won't find 600. Go check it out. And a lot of our equipment has to be referenced across that 600 ohm resistor. Some recorders actually have them built in. Most don't but you need to use it in order to get the proper readings on your test equipment. So we can't possibly discuss things like that here at your current level of understanding and capabilities on a professional level. It goes beyond your scope. And I'm not talking about the test gizmo scope LOL. You'll also need that to verify that you have a clean 100 kHz + bias frequencies sine wave. (The 3M machines use 235 kHz). And it's that bias frequency and bias level adjustment that ensures the best recordings possible from the tape formulation you have adjusted for. And it's different for different tape formulations. So it's really quite a bit more complex than ya can possibly imagine.

And I have not even really mentioned anything about those all so important heads and how to accurately position them down to the micron level of accuracy. No walk in the park there fursure fursure. And so it doesn't matter if you adjusted playback alignment and record alignment if your head is out of whack. And you've got three of those that must be matched together identically. And I mean identically. Height. Wrap. Zenith. Azimuth. That's for things that can go terribly wrong with each head. And screwing one up will screw the others up by make unit tape ride up or down. So they all interact. Which means you have more than 12 chances to really screw up good. Not for the faint of heart. And we also have to use lots of grease pencils to get it right. LOL. And you don't draw anything with those. Though you may accidentally stick it where the sun don't shine? Don't do that... it hurts... I've done it. Not intentionally. I thought it was a tampon? It wasn't.

You put the lime in the coconut and use smear the heads with grease pencil.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Geez? Stupid me? I forgot to tell you about how to adjust tape tension on the supply side. Tape tension on the take-up side. How to measure how much pressure the pinch roller is exerting on the capstan shaft. And the brake adjustments and replacements. All of this affects speed, wow, flutter and the amount of wear to the heads. And if it's not correct, it's a nightmare. And which, all of which is easy for a person like me to take care of it in 10 minutes. I mean, to align everything on a 24 track machine, 10 minutes. And I mean everything. Because that's all the time ya had between sessions. So you had to do it right and you had to do it fast. No excuses for anything.

As I have said earlier, there are full-blown alignments which must be performed on these machines from time to time. For the home studio, it's much easier. People aren't spending $30,000 + + + for an album which is under contract with a record label and millions of dollars are riding on your capabilities. That's pressure my friend big pressure. You've got all the time in the world to get this right. And you can start now. (Click)

The clock is rolling.
Mx. Remy Ann David

DonnyThompson, post: 400160 wrote: You actually got 850 hours out of a DA 88? Lucky you, ;) I think I managed 680... once.

Back to the topic...

Personally I think your best bet is to look at a dedicated DAW. If you have a computer (obviously you do) and it's fairly recent in processor/speed/power/etc., all you'll need, as Remy mentioned, is an Audio I/O of some kind with good mic pre's, and a production/recording platform - Pro Tools, Sonar, Cubase, Reaper, etc.

The nice thing about having a computer-based platform is that you have:

1. Limitless numbers of tracks * (*dependant on processor, ram, HD storage capacity, etc.)
2. The ability to edit, shuffle, slip, slide, tweak, twist, or watusi those tracks imported or layed-over from an analog source - like your Teac.
3. Most - if not all - of these programs come with stock digital effects and processors bundled in (reverbs, delays, compressors, etc).
4. The option to add/buy more processors and effects, as well as virtual instruments/soft synths including drums, synths, pads, stabs, and virtual amps like Amplitube
5. While I don't use it, you can get pitch correction software, like Melodyne or Antares
6. With the right midi I/O or audio I/O that includes a sync I/0, you could also sync your tape machine to your PC via SMPTE - if you don't mind burning a track on your deck for the code. This could prove helpful in laying over those analog tracks to your PC/DAW

I'm not saying that the Alesis HD deck suggested by Boswell is a bad thing, to the contrary, it's a very nice piece. I've been seriously considering one for live remote work.

But... if you want to edit or slip those tracks into alignment, you'll need some kind of editing software in which to do this, and being that the DAW programs do so much more than that, you might as well look into a program that will let you multi track recording and production from start to finish - and assuming you already have a computer that is current or powerful enough to handle digital audio recording, then you're already halfway there. All you need to do is to add a good multi-input USB audio I/O, choose your production program, and you're off and running.

IMHO, of course.
-d.

How about a machine like the Korg D888. Its got simultaneous recording of 8 tracks, which is what I would like. I have mixers and outboard gear so "on board" features wouldnt be needed.

You can go any way you want. There are many different stand alone and all-in-one units out there. Personally, I know nothing about the Korg you mentioned.

I prefer computer-based production platforms over stand alone units, because you can do so much more; you get so much more bang for the buck - and, as I mentioned previously, you're already halfway home because you already have a computer.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that with any stand-alone or all-in-one unit, you're buying into built-in limitations. You have a finite track count. I don't know the Korg model you're asking about, so I can't tell you the other limitations it may have ( converters, sampling rates, bit resolutions, exporting/importing features, etc.) but I'd bet that there are likely more than a few limitations or drawbacks in comparison to a computer-based DAW.

The thing is, it's easy to picture what you want now, and what you need to do the things you want to do now. But, what about a year from now? What about 6 months from now?

I guess I don't understand your hesitancy and your leaning towards a stand-alone... unless you were looking for something specific to accomplish a specific task - for example, live remote recording.

I'm just curious, and you certainly don't have to answer the question, but are there particular reasons as to why you seem to be shying away from a computer-based production platform?

-d.

I suppose a stand alone machine seems to be simpler and above all, cheaper.

Not quite sure which KORG, you're referring to? One was at the advertising agency I work for. Kind of a self-contained digital audio workstation with built-in faders and other buttons and knobs. Hard disk space was limited and upgrading it proved to be problematic. And which necessitated transferring tracks and files back and forth, in and out. A real bore. And this at the time was their top of the line of their professional/industrial series. But it would still likely do the job that was intended to do. I just don't know why you want to delay the inevitable? These $500 or so, 8 premium sounding XLR combo, one quarter inch computer audio interface's include software equally worth the cost of the device. And that with which you will be able to go far beyond where your imagination can even take you. It's well worth over $1000. It ain't old and worn out. It's most definitely state-of-the-art. Most definitely a fully professional quality sound that will go well beyond any and all of those used standalone multitrack recorders, that break so easily. And which the cost of repair is not practical. And if you are in the middle of an unfinished project, your only option would be to locate an exactly identical device. Which may or may not be possible with this 20+ year old equipment. I mean this stuff comes from a previous millennia. You really are trying very hard to finish last for some reason we cannot quite comprehend?

So if you are good in your bank account? And you want a standalone recorder? For heaven's sake at least look into a used ALESIS HD 24. Of which there are two versions. One is the first release. The other was their second and last release that included XR in the model number. Either one are great. They worked just like a very convenient home tape recorder. And they have interchangeable hard disk drives that you can easily change out. Not unusual to have one album project on one hard drive and another album project on another hard drive. Lots of folks have them. You can take your hard drive out of the slide out caddy to another studio with the same machine. And they are and have been very prolific machines. Only $1500 for a brand-new one. Nothing much to wear out on them as there is nothing mechanical except for the pushbuttons and the hard disk drives. It originally came with just a 20 GB drive but they will accommodate up to like 1 or 2 TB drives. And that's enough disc space to make it 24 track recording starting today and winning the stop button this time next year. Not really but almost LOL. I have one and convenient access to many others when I need them. One of the best bangs for the buck. And high resolution 24-bit recording with a maximum of 48 kHz sample rate for the first release version and for the extended resolution version, 96 kHz (but only 12 channels at 96 kHz). So ya get that option for that high-resolution 96, which I generally don't need, don't bother with, not necessary. Good for those anal folks. Good when somebody hands you a substantial contract. And then you go out and buy three more machines as they all conveniently plug into each other for the ability to record upward of 128 simultaneous tracks. So that should do ya.

Now the other very cool thing about that machine is the ease at which and speed you can transfer the whole thing into your computer. Then that master disk drive from the machine, you put on your shelf as a safety backup. Meanwhile, it's now on the disk drive inside your computer and you are ready to start mixing. And you can do further overdubs in the computer should you require more than the 24 tracks the machine already provided for. In fact, the digital converters in that XR version, are being utilized in place of many other premium high priced external converters. And with a proper or secondary interface is also simultaneously connected to my computer via light pipe fiber optics. Which also allows me for live recording purposes to roll both on that machine and use that machine to feed my computer at the same time. Providing for semi-redundant parallel recording. And with which even eliminates the extra 10 minutes it would simply take to transfer that disk drive into the computer. And probably because I consider myself to be one of the best lazy engineers I know? So why lift an extra finger if you don't have to? You need something to scratch with. Physically. Like on your body. I mean when something itches. Or because you are holding one thing in your left hand while lighting it from your right hand, would make it extremely difficult. It's just nice that it's kind of laid out like a old-fashioned but highly deluxe cassette tape recorder LOL. And just as easy to use. Even more gratifying when you realize what it can deliver. And I would not call this a compromise recorder. It is in use across the world by many rather expensive professional studios. You can find them for mere hundreds on eBay. I certainly love mine and highly recommend it. And it doesn't care what kind of multitrack software you like to use.

So get one of those and then get one of those Pre-Sonus campfire Studio and you will have the most incredible digital home studio that will have your friends drooling every time they come over. It's about as professional as you could get without spending $10,000 more as many do. It will ramp up your creative juices. In fact it will distill your creative juices to 98 Proof. And without any grain. So don't give us that blather about its only for myself, I don't need professional yada yada. You will when your creative juices take off. You don't want to waste your money do you? Well then... get something that will last you a couple of years. Something you can still get technical/customer support should you have any problems. It's a worthy investment in yourself. So if you have something creative to offer the world? Shouldn't you put your best foot forward? Then this would give you so many other versatile possibilities. For instance here's a couple of examples.

So now ya have this cool state-of-the-art, 24 track, hard disk recorder. Friends of yours are playing in a band at a big celebration. You tuck your 24 track machine under your arm, I'm not kidding, weighs less than 10 pounds (?). And you have a chord a.k.a. snake that fans out with 24, one quarter inch plugs on both ends. You say hello to the guy running sound and plug your cords into the mixer. You arm all 24 tracks in ready record mode. And you mash to play & record buttons and you are ready to raid the bar and food. Then you take it home. No no no not just the food.

You dump it into your computer and while watching your favorite football game, you create a killer mix. Then you master it with the included Mastering software and you are ready to upload and/or burn discs and blow chips. Which is not quite the same as blowing chunks. That only happens when you've been to the bar more than you have been to the buffet. Wouldn't be anything you can't do. Well... other than perhaps making $1 million or more? Which is the same problem we're all having. But you'd be much closer.

You can find some of this stuff in pawnshops. Recording industry down. It's really not down. It's gone.
Mx. Remy Ann David

frosty55, post: 400188 wrote: I suppose a stand alone machine seems to be simpler and above all, cheaper.

yeah, maybe. So is a Yugo... that doesn't mean I want to drive one. LOL

According to specs, this unit is limited to 44/16 in sampling and resolution, its EQ is a fixed 3 way, has little to no editing capability, and according to the review I read, it was designed primarily for live use.

here's an excerpt from the review:

Although Korg included some basic editing and mixing functions, the D888 really isn't intended as a desktop studio. So if that is what you need, look elsewhere.

You can mix on the recorder, but here you are limited by the single effects engine and lack of essential tools such as compression and parametric EQ. You're better off using the USB 2.0 port to send tracks to your computer for serious editing and mixing.

And, as Remy mentioned, if it takes a nosedive on you, you're down. You can't remove a drive and take it with you to use another machine.

I suppose that if you want to be limited to track count, are willing to accept the fixed 3 way EQ, and are happy with the sampling rates and bit resolutions, then by all means, go for it.

It only runs around $200, so it's not as if you're tapping a second mortgage to get it.

source: KORG D888

Yup, that's pretty much the device I was referring to. It's more than 13-year-old technology. Sure it works. I sure didn't think it was anything to write home about. And I did not find it all that versatile. The commercial advertising agency was using theirs to playback jingle and sound effects tracks and cut a couple of live announcers. It was adequate for that purpose. And it never had enough disc space for a couple of dozen jingles. And which I also believed utilized an internal SCSI drive? Try to find some large capacity SCSI drives? And without breaking your bank. You certainly will not find a capacity one expects today. Nowhere near. Something like 8 GB maximum? But if it works fine for your purpose as applications as suggested, go for it. You still need your equipment to speak to you and the way in which you want to work. And should you want to transfer tracks into the computer, it might not be easy? It might be time consuming and boring? And you may have complications having to synchronize numerous tracks? It might have digital SPDIF, allowing for only two tracks to be transferred at a time, all performed in real time. So a 2 our recording might require eight hours of transfer work? Just to get it into your computer for specialized postproduction and/or mixing. So you may have to weigh the negative points of this device? It's only a bargain if it truly suits your specific needs.

I've passed up many bargains because they just didn't make sense anymore.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Thank you all for your advice and supreme knowledge.

You're quite welcome. Hope it makes your decision-making more fruitful for ya? You gather as much information as you can to weigh what is best for you. And even when I talk about things that seem to be unrelated, frequently, later ya find the relation. And you'll be more knowledgeable and better prepared because you remember reading something goofy by a goofy person about it.

I'm not a game player nor do I like to play games. About the only game I play is a little blackjack every couple of years for a few minutes when I drop into a casino at the beach. But in many ways, I think I am well I am an old one I know, because the little synapses in my grey matter have constantly been playing games without my knowledge? And the game is to see how many of them selves they can all connect together? And I'm supposed to be neither intelligent nor alive which can only make me surmise, that my brain damage is so severe, so terribly severe (as described by the doctors) that I have been too stupid to know that I'm supposed to be stupid? What else could it be? I'm good at diagnosing audio and other electrical circuit problems. So I win.

I'm the luckiest in the world.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Another pouint while I am on here...on my Teac 80-8 there is an "input" button and a "monitor" button. Which needs to be engaged to show the true recording level on the machine?

Every professional machine (including these proconsumer units) are known as three head decks. Erase/record & play (in that order). Your monitor switching allows for overall group control of input and tape playback head or record sync head monitor output switching. You then would drop individual tracks into or out from record Input monitor/sync Record head, playback monitoring. Which all modern multitrack recorders had. Slightly different on some of the even older classic machines by Ampex and Scully, 3M for instance. So while everyone of those older recorders had switch selectable input source monitoring, playback head Playback and sync playback from the record head, those early machines did not have necessarily group control of the monitor switching and automatic changeover from input monitor to record sync head Playback and back again. Which was a more modern day convenience to have especially when using a completely full function remote control of everything on the machine from like 30 feet away. Or if it was in the machine room so that any mechanical noise and/or fans running on those earlier machines would be isolated to its own room not in the control room. So those machines needed full function remote controls. Your machine does not offer that kind of full function remote control of which is all located on the machine itself. And which you have to have close by. And with our earlier full-size professional recorders from 2 to 8 track machines, usually did not offer full function remotes either. And you had to throw a flip switch, on the machine in addition to mashing the record button. Your machine offered complete switching but only from the machine itself. And that switch controls the group monitor switching of all input monitoring or all output monitoring. Your individual record switches for each channel then provide the automatic switching crossover from input monitor to sync head playback or, playback head Play back depending upon what mode of playback is selected for each individual channel on the machine. And which makes punching in and out for overdubbing so much easier to do. So that is the master monitoring selector switch. Which was a more modern-day feature starting with machines in the mid-1970s unprofessional machines and which took a little more time to get to with the proconsumer machines such as yours which we really didn't start seeing until the early 1980s on those proconsumer decks. Such as your 80-8 and the 40-4, followed by the 38 and 58's and beyond. And later with their 16 & 24 track machines. And whereas with the American-made machines we started seeing that happening in the mid-1970s. For instance the Ampex MM-1000/8 & 16 had no full function remote's but the Scully's 8 & 16 track machines along with the 3M/56 series machines already had. Ampex upgraded their MM 1000, to the more compact, full-featured laden MM 1100 & 1200's. And where MCI/Sony & 3M offered further refinements, improved sync response and other features. And where's Scully after their 16 track machines, and no longer offered anything beyond an eight track machine without a full featured remote. Which really marked the end of the reign of the Scully's. And then the market was flooded by these proconsumer Japanese machines including OTARI, TA-SCAM, FOSTEX. And where since 1992, analog virtually disappeared from the smaller studios when the ADAT & DA-88's along with Sony's, Mitsubishi and 3M Digital multitrack reel to reel recorders marked the end of analog. And where we are today with many folks creating a resurgence back to multitrack analog recording and even modern day vinyl pressings. And there you will find that everything old is new again right on up through ribbon microphones. You can hardly find those a few years ago. Virtually disappeared altogether in the 1980s. Now every manufacturer of microphones and their Taiwanese brothers are making them all over the planet again. 1928 technology. What's that tell ya? It tells ya that these antique technologies are still state-of-the-art. A sheep in wolfs clothing if you will?

So while it won't sound digital it sure as hell is still good reasonable sounding analog. And with its nonlinear transference in the analog domain, you still get to experience what the real professional machines had to offer. And that was the saturation when we recorded drums for the most part. But then even vocals and other instrumentation still gets to benefit from that otherwise somewhat smooth and mushy sound without the saturation thing going on. And also where electric guitar parts could sound fatter with a bit of that saturation on guitar tracks. And where you really get to hear the beautiful nonlinear transference characteristics of analog tape. But this will also necessitate a need to control the residual and rather abundant noise you will get from the tape itself. Some folks relied upon the two competitive noise reduction systems which both had an adverse effect on the sound. And where folks like myself would simply rely upon noise gates and downward expanders that would not affect the tonal quality quality of the tape like noise reduction would. But this was also a type of noise reduction that was also regularly utilized in the film industry. Where it was used on individual tracks such as drums, vocals, guitar amplifiers and electronic keyboards. So when those particular instruments and tracks were not playing back anything, the track would be effectively reduced and/or muted by the noise gate or downward expander. And where you could create anywhere from 10 or so db's of noise reduction all the way up to 100 db of noise reduction. The actual professional noise reduction systems and their auditory detriments only provided from 10-30 db worth of noise reduction of the tape. And where I preferred the sound of " barefoot tape " sound, without those noise reduction systems. And where lots of folks would use their console automation to mute or change the levels of tracks, which had to be painstakingly programmed with each individual fader. Which took a whole lot of time to do. I needed quick results so I used the KEPEX 1's, to do that in real time, on the fly requiring no automation programming. This was absolutely necessary for me to have since I was specializing in live on-air broadcasts of these lives musical events. So I was basically doing mix downs of live events in real time and there were no remix opportunities to even think about or consider. Which made my workflow vastly different than under actual studio conditions. And where in the studio, I didn't do it any differently as I had no automation on my consoles. Though my consoles did have group mute features. And where I did not particularly care for the sound of tracks being opened and muted without the benefit of the smooth trackable downward fades of the downward expanders I deemed to be much more advantageous sounding to me. Not that we did not mute things because we did. But only when other tracks could mask the sound of that mute door opening and slamming closed. And with which we accomplished by having more than one person with their hands on the console during the mix. And where that tape timer then became extremely important beyond just random counting of numbers. Ya know you had your mute coming up at three minutes 23 seconds until it needed to reopen again at say four minutes and 13 seconds, from the timer of the running tape. And you would have your run down with these times that these mutes needed to be performed. Now we have software which made life extremely easy for a single operator/mixer. And where you would find me and my studio partner both pulling faders during mixes. Because it required 4 hands or even more.

So on your machine, you have the need to monitor and see what is going into those tracks. And then you can monitor and see that the playback of those tracks should be virtually identical to the input levels along with its included rudimentary tape noise. Which was quite white in nature at slower speeds and more pink noise in nature at the higher recording speeds. And with which might dictate what speed based upon budget and audio requirements, you would choose to use for recording. And where much was done at 15 IPS which had a more of a white noise signature to it than the 30 IPS speed, which no proconsumer recorder offered. I've done just as many 15 IPS recordings as I have done 30 IPS recordings on multitrack machines. And believe it or not, you don't always want 30 IPS. Because while you obtained lower noise and the difference in that noise along with a more highly extended frequency response in the upper register of the spectrum, many of these professional machines exhibited a loss of low frequencies at 30 IPS below 60 Hz. Whereas at 15 IPS, you'd be flat down to 20 Hz. It would still extend beyond 20 kHz but then you had that different kind of more white sounding noise floor from the tape. So analog recording required an understanding of the medium you are using for recording purposes along with the pros and cons of the tape and tape speed that you chose to use (also based upon the budget for tape which was quite expensive and still is) which would lock the project into the decisions you have made.

This is another reason why preproduction and production meetings and discussions throughout the project from the very beginning until the final completion is so necessary. These were group, engineering and management team oriented projects. It wasn't all left up to little Billy in his basement $500 studio. And because millions of dollars were riding on this group effort of everyone involved. The commercial jingle production for the advertising agency was no different than it would be for a contracted record label release.

Today much has changed. Today, everyone is a one-man band because they can be. Not necessarily that they should be? But that's not considered your decision to make under professional conditions. That's the decision you get to make under your conditions. And since everything has gone so far away from the record label business plan, little Billy gets to make all of the decisions. All of which there are a lot of decisions to make and can become quite overwhelming to those that thought the engineer merely set up a couple of microphones and then you had a hit. And sometimes that happens. Most of the time not.

Today the business plan is you are the chief cook and bottle washer, musician, recordists, engineer, mixer, performer, Mastering Engineer, manager, publicist, advertising and marketing sales force of a solo nature. Not to forget you are also now the record label of your own and duplication/pressing plant and packaging with your own shrink wrap machine taking up one of the two car spaces in your garage. And don't forget to apply for your bar code for your stocking and retail sales in your other local record stores. And don't forget to apply for your copyrights and phonograms of your recordings and compositions. Then you might have to consult a lawyer about whatever trademarks you might want to apply for? So this costs a little more than the Audio Blob Box and five microphones you purchased from the music store. I personally am not interested in all of that folderol. I just record and mix music and design, install and maintain recording studios and other audio/video production facilities, for others. Because I don't have the knowledge nor the financial wear for all to be able to put that whole kit and caboodle all together as a single person. Younger folks have more energy and can frequently keep up that kind of pace and passion for a while. I did when I was younger. Not so much so at 57+ years of age to kill myself in the pursuit of making a decent recording as I have in the past. You can only go after things with reckless abandon for only so long. Youth is great. I want mine back! This over 50s stuff sucks and I want my money back! I'm just not sure who to complain to or who to write to about this unresolvable issue? It's not like I could return my brain surgery to the store. It's been over 30 days! And they would charge a restocking fee. And with which would also probably require some other kind of retro fit? Like a wheelchair or a hospital bed? And I don't particularly like the way those sound even if they are the new electronically controlled state-of-the-art newfangled gizmos. I'd rather use those older ones from the 1970s, that require quite a bit of restoration and rehab. Along with a prerequisite physical therapy of moving all of the controls regularly so they don't get stiff and become frail and intermittent. And that requires regular exercise of every knob and every switch, every day, just like brushing your teeth. You did brush today didn't you? Your faders, switches and heads? No? Then no dessert for you until you have brushed your heads, cleaned your pinch rollers and calibrated all of the settings of your bed.

What did you do with your toothbrush? Is it in the maintenance shop where it's supposed to be?
Mx. Remy Ann David

Erm.....I aint sure where in your long answer, is the info I want...
So do I need to have "normal" engaged all of the time when recording?

Wasn't sure if you had a manual?

These are the three master function buttons. Obviously the one marked input will monitor whatever is going in to the inputs and pass that signal directly through to the outputs. Meanwhile, you could be recording? You could be in stop mode.

Switching machine into Normal means that the machine when stopped will be monitoring whatever's going into the inputs. Through to the outputs. When you engage play it will then switchover to sync mode, which means it is playing back through the record head. If that channel is armed for recording, when you hit the record button it will drop out of playing back through the record head and switch it to source input, passed through the electronics to the output, monitoring. When you drop out of record, it goes back to playing back through the record head, anything on that track. This is necessary for selective synchronization of channels a.k.a. sync.

The playback button switches all monitoring to the playback head which is the furthest one to the right of the other 2 heads. This position on many multitrack recorders is simply there for record calibration purposes. Many of these newer machines actually work out better for you, when completely produced on that machine, to simply playback and mix down from the record head. Doing it this way eliminates what is known as gap scatter. Of which there is always a minute amount of between the differences of each head and each track. Though on older design multitrack machines sync response and the associated noise along with it, didn't make that a practical way to go. So on the older machines, we always used the playback head. And it all depends on your machine. If you hear a radical difference between the normal position while playing back a previously recorded track and the playback position, you have an older style multitrack machine. If the difference that you hear isn't much to write home about or feel there is a reason to be alarmed about, you've got a more modern design machine. I didn't personally own a 80-8. Work done plenty of other machines by them through the years. I owned a later model 38 which had usable sync response. Nothing as awful sounding as my 3340's when in sync mode. Yuck, vomit. That came from the older more efficient wide gap record heads. And folks complain about that. Eventually technology pushed forward and that was no longer a problem. And then we could take advantage of no gap scatter. And where the analogy to gap scatter is sort of like taking a beautiful picture with everything looking beautiful and great but the primary subject matter is slightly soft in focus. And that's what gap scatter looks like to the eardrum.

So normally you leave the machine in normal. You select input to simply verify continuity of signal and the levels therein. And leaving it in normal changes the monitor switching functions when channels are dropped into an out from record. And we are all other channels that have been previously pre-recorded are being monitored from the record head.

Unlike digital, channels playing back through the record head that are adjacent to a track in which you are overdubbing to can have some detrimental interaction. It's a type of feedback. It will slam meters and make for terrible recordings. High pitched squealing sounds. So one has to be careful how they set their monitor mixes with playback tracks next to and adjacent to recording tracks.

For instance if you recorded on tracks 1-7 but you need more tracks, you would need to do a bounce. And conceivably, you could mix channels one through seven on your console and bounce it down to channel 8 on the machine. But whatever is on channel 7 will cause problems when trying to balance 7, to 8. Now it can be done but at a much lower volume level to prevent the inductive feedback happening within the record head. So generally, we tried to provide a guard band of one track between any that we want to bounce to be at least separated by a null track. Which was kind of fun when you were tracking a band live yet knew you were going to be bouncing things. You actually had to think ahead so you wouldn't bounce yourself into a corner. And then you're already two generations down on many things before you even started to think about a mix. You could even find yourself more than four generations down before you are ready to mix. And things can get really nasty sounding really quickly that way.

So I guess the Japanese chose not to label that switch Sync Master? I guess they just wanted you to be more comfortable with the machine and therefore Normal would provide the Ways and Means for the quickly growing semi-pro studio craze they had started just a couple of years earlier? So normal is what you want. You'll do most of your work in the normal position. Arming of tracks will change the function of the monitoring depending on whether recording has been initiated or canceled. And there's various ways of doing that on the fly while the tape is rolling. And the monitor switching will change its logical function when you are armed or not armed to record on that track. And that monitor function will change between stop mode and play mode. That switching will also be influenced by the channel 1-8 record arming pushbuttons.

So you don't have the manual?
Mx. Remy Ann David

Hi Remy. Er..no, I dont have a manual. Thanks for the info, much appreciated.
Any idea about some half inch tape I have aquired called "Agfa Gevaert Magnet Band" ? The leader tape is coloured white at both ends.

see response in your other thread...

It all depends on the formula of the Agfa tape? If it is 468, it'll be indicated on the flat black back coating. You'll be a will to record on this tape but you will not be able to fully erase it. It will require bulk erasing in order to reuse it on the Scully 280 & 280 B's. And your bias will be pretty much cranked full up to achieve the 3 DB over bias at 10 kHz. So it will be fine to Master and to Mix to this tape but the bias/erase current, no matter what you do, will still leave signal behind. If you erase over a section more than once it may work better? But if you are just overdubbing over a section, that previous track will not fully erase.

These machines will only work with the equivalent to Scotch 206/207, 226/227, Ampex 456 Grand Master. And where everything else will likely cause poor erasure. I think that Studer or REVOX' may be able to effectively erase that formula tape? Ampex' also, MCI & 3M, OTARI & Some TEAC/TA-SCAM's. For reasons not fully understood, Scully seems to be a little bit more limited in the use of the last generation of high output, low noise recording tapes. Problems we have all tried to correct, all unsuccessfully. Modifications included much higher current transistors, which did nothing more than saturate the core of the erase head, just making the matter worse. Then where I believe only effective way to correct this problem is with a complete change of the erase head? And this might be a difficult or impossible effort? Not only that, costly. No erase head has been determined yet to do an effective job? But then nobody has done what I suggested. And I haven't wasted my own money to find out either because it's not at the top of my list of priorities anymore. The Ampex 456 formulation seems to be the only one that may still be available that will work effectively? The 499, not so much so. GP nine either. Certainly not the Agfa 468 or anything beyond that. So very few blank tapes today will work effectively on that machine or any Scully. There won't be any problems recording. They'll only have problems erasing. And if you have any Scully multitrack machine, you are kind of up the creek with those. 1/4 inch not as much of a problem where you could bulk Erase the tape. Spooling off what you have used and bulk erasing the rest.

So while the Scully's will record well with those latest generation hot tapes, they will not be 100% effective. Which is why you should try and seek out the Ampex 456 which I believe is still available. It's just not called that anymore. I think being manufactured by ATR Michael Spitz? And not the Agfa formulation. Give ATR a call and see what they have? Tell them it's for a Scully 280.

They are great machines if you know what to use with them.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Scully 280?

frosty55, post: 400618 wrote: Scully 280?

RemyRAD, post: 400614 wrote: It all depends on the formula of the Agfa tape? If it is 468, it'll be indicated on the flat black back coating. You'll be a will to record on this tape but you will not be able to fully erase it. It will require bulk erasing in order to reuse it on the Scully 280 & 280 B's. And your bias will be pretty much cranked full up to achieve the 3 DB over bias at 10 kHz. So it will be fine to Master and to Mix to this tape but the bias/erase current, no matter what you do, will still leave signal behind. If you erase over a section more than once it may work better? But if you are just overdubbing over a section, that previous track will not fully erase.

These machines will only work with the equivalent to Scotch 206/207, 226/227, Ampex 456 Grand Master. And where everything else will likely cause poor erasure. I think that Studer or REVOX' may be able to effectively erase that formula tape? Ampex' also, MCI & 3M, OTARI & Some TEAC/TA-SCAM's. For reasons not fully understood, Scully seems to be a little bit more limited in the use of the last generation of high output, low noise recording tapes. Problems we have all tried to correct, all unsuccessfully. Modifications included much higher current transistors, which did nothing more than saturate the core of the erase head, just making the matter worse. Then where I believe only effective way to correct this problem is with a complete change of the erase head? And this might be a difficult or impossible effort? Not only that, costly. No erase head has been determined yet to do an effective job? But then nobody has done what I suggested. And I haven't wasted my own money to find out either because it's not at the top of my list of priorities anymore. The Ampex 456 formulation seems to be the only one that may still be available that will work effectively? The 499, not so much so. GP nine either. Certainly not the Agfa 468 or anything beyond that. So very few blank tapes today will work effectively on that machine or any Scully. There won't be any problems recording. They'll only have problems erasing. And if you have any Scully multitrack machine, you are kind of up the creek with those. 1/4 inch not as much of a problem where you could bulk Erase the tape. Spooling off what you have used and bulk erasing the rest.

So while the Scully's will record well with those latest generation hot tapes, they will not be 100% effective. Which is why you should try and seek out the Ampex 456 which I believe is still available. It's just not called that anymore. I think being manufactured by ATR Michael Spitz? And not the Agfa formulation. Give ATR a call and see what they have? Tell them it's for a Scully 280.

They are great machines if you know what to use with them.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Yep, I have about eight or nine Ampex 456 and a Quantegy 456 (which Ampex was). I got rid of two of those Ampex 456 today because of Sticky Shed.
Sometime later this year I intend buying some RMGI SM911, which is the equivalent of the 456 tapes. When I do eventually get them, I take it that brand new tape will not shed at all, even the finest of oxide dust. Am I correct in thinking this?

No not exactly correct. All tape sheds. In fact, Scully once had a device for the 288-16. It was basically a role of something similar to those dust attracting state of the art feather duster's. And it incrementally advanced as the tape rolled. And it was amazing the shedding you would find from brand-new fresh tape.

The sticky tape syndrome is 100 times worse. No... 1000 times worse. It's not only shedding, its molecular structure has changed due to hydrolysis. Which made the environmentally friendly new urethane binder a.k.a. oxide glue turned into fresh tar. Have you ever tried walking through molten tar much less trying to record on something like that? Right. You don't want to. You wouldn't even want to try. And that's sticky tape syndrome. Far worse than any kind of normal shedding. And that's another reason why we kept our heads cleaned, without dandruff shampoo. 91% isopropyl alcohol which you can get at your local pharmacy. You do not want to use any other type of solutions other than the now unavailable Freon a.k.a. air-conditioner refrigerant.

Back in the day, a funny but rather tragic thing happened. Ampex had heads, made quite differently from other manufacturers. And they offered their own head cleaning solution. It worked great on their heads. It destroyed everyone else's because it contained xylene. And the xylene melted everyone else's epoxy that held their heads together. So while it was outrageously funny to hear about... there was nothing funny about it. That head cleaning solution destroyed thousands of dollars and thousands of heads made by all the other manufacturers. And this was a very difficult lesson for some very experienced people to learn. So any other solvent other than 91% isopropyl alcohol is a big no-no. At the worst, rubbing alcohol is only 73% isopropyl. The rest is water and other nonessential ingredients except for a rubdown at the spa LOL. You can also use methyl alcohol but those fumes are poisonous to humans and other living creatures. Great for your septic system. So stay away from that stuff also. You can use it just don't breathe it. And not smart to have around the house if you have kids. I mean when we were kids we also played with Mercury. We know now, 40 years later that as one of the most poisonous substances to be exposed to. Up there with plutonium. And we would roll it around in the palm of our hands for hours. I mean it was truly unique playing with molten metal at room temperatures. So I won't be surprised if I'm given a diagnosis of cancer in my not-too-distant future. Or all of the asbestos were used to play with in our classrooms. We would crumple it up and make ya go airborne to marvel at the beautiful sparkly stuff we were all inhaling.

So using any kind of solvents on the rubber pinch roller and heads could make for an untimely end to an otherwise wonderful piece of equipment. Whether it's a tape recorder or a human being LOL.

That SM 911 is equivalent to 456? I never used SM 911? I thought the last Ampex tape was 499? I don't think I've made an analog recording much since I went digital in 1983. With the exception of my Ampex MM 1200-24 which I didn't dump until 1993. And when Scotch, Ampex & Agfa was still available. So if that 911 is equivalent to the 456, you should be good on the erase. And you'll have no problems biasing since it should not require more than 2 db over bias at 10 kHz. Which is also approximately equal to peak bias at 1 kHz but is more accurate to do at 10 kHz with 2 db over bias. Excuse me. That should be .5 db over bias at 1 kHz. Peak biasing at 1 kHz was also popular to do. And both peak and over bias provides for a different sound from each other. One in which only you can decide you might like better? Both ways have their pros and cons and you just have to find out for yourself what you like best.

Some of the even hotter tapes required as much as 3 or 4 db over bias at 10 kHz. A level the Scully's could barely squeak out. And where you could get them to bias up, you still couldn't get them to properly erase the tape. But the 456, no problem.

To the best of my knowledge and because of the EPA, I really don't believe there has been any adjustment in the binder a.k.a. glue for the oxide? And if there has been no change to the binder, you can bet your sweet BIPPY, it's going to turn back into tar in less than 10 years. Though I would hope that better improvements have been made but I doubt it. What worked well before is now deemed unhealthy and unsafe to use anymore, anywhere. So some tapes that are 30-40 years old and older, still play fine. Acetate tape that has not yet turned to dust will be extremely fragile and virtually unusable. And that's going back 50 years plus. Much of those are simply unrecoverable due to age.

The other cheap mylar-based recording tape such as the Shamrock and Irish brands will likely also be quite fine. They were just seconds of Scotch and Ampex. And if you can find any Scott 150, that was actually designed to work great on a Scully 280. Scully included this special circuit they called the linearizer. It was very confusing to adjust. And the adjustment is counterintuitive as it is counterclockwise to all of the other adjustments. You don't turn it down to turn it off. You turn it completely up to turn it off. But it was designed to provide a 2 db improvement in level and signal-to-noise ratio. That was a big deal back then. That circuit became useless with anything but standard tape. And no one in their right minds at any recording studio were using Scotch 150 when we got Dynarange 203. Followed by 206, 226, 250. That's circuit is not applicable to anything but standard tape. And it should be disabled by turning the adjustment fully clockwise not counterclockwise. Otherwise everything will sound overly distorted because that's what the circuit is designed to generate, distortion of an inverse variety to what the tape would produce. So it helped to cancel out the distortion the tape imposed. It was brilliant in its day. No other manufacturer had anything like it. Of which its usefulness dried-up with the newer tape formulations. And where it would have imposed a greater detriment to the audio if not disabled by turning the adjustment fully clockwise. Everyone makes the mistake of turning that adjustment counterclockwise like a volume control. That ain't right.

I know a few things about Scully's
Mx. Remy Ann David

Not sure what got me onto the Scully's? You've got an 80-8 not Scully. Boy, I really lose it sometimes. I actually don't think you'll have any problems eraseing anything on your 80-8. That erase problem was a peculiarity unto only the Scully's. All of them. And I guess I go off on a tangent sometimes because I worked for Scully in their last days. I'm also quite intimately familiar with the MCI/Sony's, 3M's and Ampex'. I'm a formally factory trained and authorized service technician for all those machines. For Scully, I was the Quality Control Manager & Final Test Technician and Savior of the 280 B, debacles. Or is that torture? Yeah, torture not debacles. It was all a flimflam screwup. Changes in parts and components from other manufacturers didn't help any either. And the problems ran real deep on those machines. Deeper than even electrical engineers could understand. So it took a dummy high school dropout to figure it out. I'm not really a dummy... I only play one on television. I think I'm going to drop recording and broadcasting and become a brain surgeon?

I'm going to the Jethro Bodine school of the mentally impoverished.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Ok thanks Remy. Youre a fountain of knowledge.