Anybody here still recording to tape?

[uffe]

If so, what's your setup, would you mind sharing some sound samples etc.

[kennyhowes]

My last solo record was done on tape, back in '03-'04. 2" Otari 24 track.

[uffe]

the big leagues. any of it online?

[teb]

Having been there and done that, first on 4-track machines and later on 16-track machines, I can't imagine why anybody would want to go back to tape. I think I get better sound quality, and I certainly have a lot more control over it, with my little Korg 16-track deck than we had at Elektra studios with their 16-track machines. If I could combine my deck with their super-expensive mics, isolation booths, monitors and technical skills, I'd be happy as a clam. Even back in the early '70s one of the biggest limiting factors was often the tape itself.

[uffe]

Having been there and done that, first on 4-track machines and later on 16-track machines, I can't imagine why anybody would want to go back to tape.

i do it for the sound!

listen to this..
http://meetyouattheshow.com/main/2010/0 ... right-now/

i dont particularly care for this band but these recordings sound so bouncy, round, human and timeless

here's another recent recording that I like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyvqU9Uz9pM

Recorded by Greg Ashley on a 1" 16-track tape machine in his modest studio in Oakland, CA. $1500 gets you a full length record recorded by him, mastered and all. Can't beat that.

[teb]

Maybe your ears are better than mine, but I don't hear anything in any of those tunes that I would attribute to being caused by recording them on tape. For my money, control over what's going on in your recording, plus little things like the "undo" button and virtual tracks, where I can record a dozen different versions of a part on the same track, keep them all and pick the one I want (or parts of it) make digital recording a no-brainer. If you're relying on the tape to make your recordings sound human or timeless, there's something wrong with your mix or your performance. Do you know why they store master tapes rolled backwards? It's because they tend to bleed from layer to layer. If the song is rolled backwards, it's less noticable when you hear the results. It comes across as nonsense noise that your brain is likely to ignore, rather than as a strange delay or echo. That's just one of the fun little things about tape that I don't miss at all. Splicing is another, as is stretch and the fact that machines spinning big heavy reels don't always do it quite as evenly as one might like.

It's funny how the nostalgia stuff is often better for those who didn't actually have to live through it. Do these people really believe that we played Silvertone guitars because we wanted to? ....or that we thought we should use tube amps because of their warm tone? If you really want to go the nostalgia trip route, I can send you some of this stuff. It will certainly make your recordings sound vintage (and probably quite bouncy, too). Check out the splicing instructions on the back. Try that with your 1" tape.

[uffe]

It's not a nostalgia trip at all. No, people did not use Silvertones and tube amps in the 50s and 60s because of their warm tone. Yet, in the age of digital modeling amps and robot guitars, many players still play 50's and 60's reissues through tube amps, analog synthesizers etc. Is it nostalgia to play a Rick through a Vox or Fender tube amp? I just think the guitar looks cool and the amp sounds better than a Line 6.

Hey, I edit and archive my stuff digitally. I just love how tape colors the sound. I suppose there are plugins that do that, but it seems simpler to me to just use tape.

[DavidW]

Does anybody know of any good vintage analog tape decks that might go for a decent price? I think it'd be interesting to try going this route instead of the typical digital one used now a days.

[jimk]

I have an old TASCAM 244 Portastudio that needs a little fixing up I could let you have for cheap, David.

I'm with you, Todd. Been through the analog tape era, and am glad for digital. I wouldn't be able to do what I'm doing nowadays 30 years ago.
JimK

[shamustwin]

My engineer (!) had his old 2" tape machine stored in limbo for some time. He recently partnered up with a cool studio (pro tools mostly). Apparently there is some new software coming out that hooks up to tape machines between the record and playback head then feeds that into pro tools (or probably any other computer based program). Supposedly capturing the true tape sound but with the pluses of computer operation. I'm the least technical guy on the planet, but that's what I picked up.

[blueflamerick]

You could always try one of these with your digital recording setup, as long as you have $3000 to drop.

http://www.anamodaudio.com/ats1.html

[marc61]

Believe it or not, I've only recorded digitally once. From a Rock and Roll standpoint, it kinda sucked. Cutting and pasting notes? Bill Haley is rolling in his grave.

We have a Tascam cassette 4 track we toy around with at home.The band recorded on 2" tape last summer, and I'm going back with m son to do it again this summer. I think you'd be surprised how many rock bands are reverting to analog these days, as well as releasing the music on vinyl. Let's face it we've been duped for 30 years. It ruined the music business. My optimism tells me things are gonna change, or revert back and all for the better.

[soundmasterg]

I've always recorded initial tracks to tape such as drums, scratch demo otherwise, sometimes bass, and then bounced that into digital and used the benefits of digital from there. Tape really adds a lot to the sound of bass frequencies like bass guitar and drums, especially when the tape machine uses transformer coupling like my old MCI 2 inch. That said, it does have limitations that are really obvious, and using the tape for certain things and digital for certain things allows you to use each for their best attributes and get a better sound overall. My 2 cents anyway.

Greg

[blue330]

It's always a bit painful to read about this, in most discussions many comments come from people with limited experience on semi-pro machines, with a dash of the Olde Cliches that get repeated endlessly. Analog tape won't make you sound like Led Zeppelin, nor is it the equivalent of a sepia-toned photograph. The very expensive professional machines were meant to be accurate above all, and they are. I use top-quality digital equipment all the time, and healthy analog tape machines. They both sound great! There were no Pro Tools hit records before 2000, yet people who are simply opposed to tape can never get their fill of talking about it like it's a laughable ancient technology that never actually works. But you can't listen to something like, say, The Wall and tell me it's all fuzzy and primitive, it sounds awesome! Analog tape machines are mechanical devices, they require maintenance, like a car. Big deal! Other things are like that... guitars come to mind. Analog tape machines are storage devices, they are not fix-it/all-in-one boxes so obviously it's a waste of time to compare them to versatile computer systems. All things being equal, a healthy professional analog recorder still sounds much grander for most popular music than all but very expensive computer systems. This will eventually give way, of course, but it's still generally true in 2011.

[jps]

SInce I got my fist Webcor recorder in the late '60s, tape has always been the way to go for high fidelity. I learned to razorblade edit on an Ampex ATR 102 and have used ATR 104s. A friend of mine has a few Studers in his basement to fool with while he restores them, some Otaris, too. As we move in to this digital age the old analog tools are quite useful as an interface to bring back all we knew and loved in sound,