Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    Depending on the budget if stickin with 4 trk, I'd get the
    latest Teac portastudio. The one with 6-chan mixer, DBX etc.
    For 8 trk I'd buy fostex A-8, a simple but QUIET mixer one
    very good graphic EQ to correct for the "knee" on the
    response and for compensating for the simple mixer. I wouldn't
    think of buing 16 trk. 
    
    One good mono compressor/limiter is a must. The new Yamaha
    SPX-90 would the ultimate for digital signal processing.
    
    Timo

    My experience is exclusively with 8-track.  I agree with Timo on
    the Fostex A-8.  Also, I have seen the Fostex 8-channel mixer
    advertised as "equipment in store", so you might be able to get
    a good price on it.  It's what I've got, and I like it.  Be sure
    to get the attached VU meters also.
        John Sauter

    RE:.2
    
    		John,
    
    	       Do you have the model 350 mixer ? - I have that one with
    a 4 track teac off of it. Because you have 8 tracks (I'm using the 4
    channel buss) , can you pan when you mix down several tracks to
    one track ? Because when I mix down tracks 1-3 to track 4, I can
    only place tracks 1-3 in the center (no left or right placement),
    is this because I'm monitoring in stereo but mixing down to
    one(mono)track? 
    
    	This is probably confusing you - so I'll tell you what I'm trying
    to do: On track 1 I have bass panned a little to the left, On track
    2 I have guitar panned alittle to the right. I mix track 1 and 2
    to track 3. When I play back track three I want the bass to still
    be alittle to the left and the guitar alittle to the right. Is this
    possible ?
                              
    
    	As for the note. I would strongly recommend a 3-3/4 ips cassette
    machine to do your recordings. These machines usually come with
    a mixer - and some sort of noise reduction (Hopefully dbx), try
    and stay away from 1-7/8 ips machines like the portastudio - they
    are cheap and they sound cheap (In my opinion). A unit like the
    Teac 244 , Is a four track with a four channel mixer and DBX - for
    around $700.00. My Reel to Reel alone - was 825.00, you still must
    buy a mixer and if you are looking for quality , noise reduction.
    
    	Beleive it or not , these cassette units sound pretty damn good
    and unless you are doing alot of acoustic work - you won't miss
    not having a reel to reel too much. The money you save can be put
    into a good reverb (like midiverb 275.00) and a compressor like
    DBX-163x (120.00).
    
    	HOWEVER !!!!! do not be mislead that this type of setup can
    be as good as a good reel to reel running at 15ips !!! GO for a
    reel to reel if you can - go for as many channels as you want/can
    afford and get the best mixer you can find. Worry about noise reduction
    later - (I have and it will be much later!!). Suggested equipment:
    
    	Low Buget ----- Teac 2340 used (good one around 4 or 5 bills)
    			This is a 4 channel unit
    			
    			Teac M-2 mixer (no vu's, no eq) around 100.00.
    			This is a very basic unit - no frills)
    
    	OR -----------  Various Fostex or Tascam units around 1000.00
    			bucks for 4 channel (Fostex-A4 -they don't make
    			em' anymore, but you can find them new - this
    			one has DOlbyC), Or Teac 22-4 (795.00) or 3340
    			around 1100.00.    
    
    			Mixer's will run you around 4 or 5 bills.
    
    	8 tracks start at around 1600.00 and of course the mixers are
        more than 4 channel mixers....etc...etc...
    
    		MAYBE THIS WILL GIVE YOU AN IDEA on where to start
    looking..
    
    Jim
    
    
    			

    re: .3--If I understand your situation, you are mixing down to one
    track and losing the stereo separation.  As far as I know, if you want
    to keep the channels separate in the fnal mix you must never mix down
    to one track--two is the minimum, one for right and one for the left
    channel. This means using twice as many tracks as you would need if
    your final mix were intended to be mono. 
        John Sauter

    I used a "non-serious" :-) 4 track cassette for my submissions,
    so you can judge what can be accomplished by a not very experienced
    or tricky person by listening to the sound quality of my three songs.
    Personally I find the cassette to be that way to go in four track,
    tape is so much cheaper. BTW that's a teac 234 I used.
    
    dave

    The former :-( guitar player in my band had a Tascam Studio 8 which
    is a combination of an 8 track deck and an 8 track mixer in one
    unit.  Cost him about $3500 so it was not cheap but sounded excellent.
    The drawback was that the mixer and tape machine were in the same
    box so upgrading one meant upgrading the other.
    
    I also have had good luck with the Teac 4 track cassette deck. 
    I recorded Steve Klosterman's former group "Jamaican Vacation" with
    it and got wonderful demo quality results.
    
    I would avoid the cheap Fostex 4 track cassette (I think it's the
    X-15) as they start off good but I have known two people where channel
    2 developed an awful feedback loop after about a year.  The higher
    end Fostex stuff seems nice (I listened to some stuff John Sauter
    did on his and was impressed).
    
    		Derek
    

	re:.6

	Another plug for the Teac 4-track along with Derek.  The quality of the
Jam Vac demo was excellent.  Everyone asks what studio we did it at. They're
very surprised when I tell them we recorded it in a barn using a 4-track. 

    I had a Tascam 244 (4 track 3.5 ips cassette) which I eventually
    upgraded to a Tascam 38 (8 track 15 ips 1/2" reel to reel).  Both
    had/have dbx noise reduction.  The 244 was a great little machine,
    and I still think about getting a 246 (its replacement) to do sketches
    and such (the way the 38 eats tape, you think twice about committing
    something to tape - on the 244, it was just pop in a cassette and
    go).  I soon discoverred four tracks wasn't enough for what I wanted
    to do (e.g., sync to tape left me with only three tracks, not a
    whole lot more than two!); I seriously considered the 388 (the Tascam
    8 track 7.5 ips 1/4" reel to reel) but for what it cost a 38 and
    a 16 into 4 into 2 mixer was only a little more expensive and a
    lot more flexible.
    
    The biggest differences between the 244 and the 38 (not a fair
    comparison, really) is noise and headroom.  The 38 is silent.  With
    the dbx operating the S/N is something like 95 db, up in CD league.
    The 244 left audible hiss on everything.  Not obnoxious, but audible
    (especially after you get used to the 38).  The extremely low noise
    floor on the 38/dbx means it's possible to record a much higher
    dynamic range without running into distortion.  Needless to say
    I love my 38.  I'm driving it with a Tascam M216 board.  One of
    these days I hope to upgrade the 216 to a 320 (20 into 8 into 2?)
    
    Some ballpark prices for new gear (investigate used stuff too):
    
    	244 - $750 (superseded by 246) \          4
    	246 - $1100                     > dbx and 4 channel mixer builtin
    	388 - $3000                    /          8
    
    	 38 - $2100 + 8 tracks of dbx at $200 per 4 tracks = $2500
    	216 - $1600 (16 into 4 into 2)
    
    	320 - $3000
    
    These are recollections which may be off by a few $100 for the
    388/38/216 prices.

    len.
    

    Does it make any sense to buy, say, an 8 channel board to use as
    the feed to a 4 track cassette recorder? This would (I think) enable
    me to mix down twice. (?) Yes?
    
    Edd

    re -1.. Edd, I feel that you can never have too many mixer channels.
    think of the 8 channels as being useful for mixing 4 tape trax down
    to stereo... with the extra channels, you can split and stereoize
    EACH TAPE track into 2 channels for mixdown to stereo... and of
    course it'll be in place when you upgrade your tape deck...
    
    kmii

    I'm not sure I understand the "mix down twice" part of the question,
    but having an 8 channel mixer would allow, for example, to mix down
    8 individual outputs off of a drum machine onto a single channel
    (or two channels for stereo) on a 4 track cassette deck.  You could
    also mix a few drum channels with, say, a bass line being sequenced,
    and then use the same synth you used to play the bass line to play
    another part while you were overdubbing.
    
    Did that make any sense?
    
    Rambling,
    Derek

    Uhhh...I don't think I understand.
    
    The number of channels determines the number of inputs you can use
    at one time.  Lots of channels are also useful if you don't have
    a patch bay and don't like rewiring (unplugging and replugging);
    you just leave everything plugged in all the time.
    
    A nice feature is if the board has "tape return" inputs.  These
    will be controlled by a switch on the first n channels of a board
    designed for use with a n-track machine.  You do mixdown via these
    switches.  These inputs can also be used for monitoring purposes
    on overdubs, when you route the channel to the "foldback" or monitor
    output instead of the tape outputs.  (You route them to the tape
    outputs for mixdown.)
    
    A nominally n-track board may have only n/2 tape outputs.  The number
    of tape outputs determines the number of tracks you can record on
    at the same time.  E.g., my M216 has 16 input and 4 tape (sometimes
    called "submix" or buss) outputs.  The 4 tape outputs are duplicated,
    so you can send output 1 to tracks 1 and 5, output 2 to tracks 2
    and 6, etc..  Then by selecting your buss assigns and the record
    enables on the tape transport, you can can record up to 16 inputs
    on up to 4 tracks, as long as you don't try to simultaneously record
    on tracks 1 and 5, or 2 and 6, etc..
    
    Does that help?
    
    len.
    

    It's all starting to make a bit of sense...
    
    In the interest of stopping my terminal case of DBA (diarrhea of
    the bank account) would it be feasible/rewarding to buy just an
    8 channel mixer (for now) and a reverb of some sort and continue
    to mix down to stereo cassette? Then, at some future point, upgrade
    the deck? Or would your experiences dictate I wait and go for it
    all at once?
    
    Edd

    Well, look at this way - do you think when you upgrade to 16 channels
    you'll have a use for or be able to unload the 8 channel board?
    Or if you can stay with 8 channels (you'll find that 16 don't cost
    twice as much) and upgrade to a 4 track (e.g., a Tascam 234) mixer-less
    deck, you'd like 4 busses (i.e., an 8 into 4 board, like a Tascam
    M-208), and you'll definitely want 4 busses if/when you go to 8
    tracks.
    
    So I think the answer is yes, it would be feasible/useful (the
    rewardingness is for you to decide), if you plan ahead, know where
    you want to go, and buy things consistent with that direction.

    8 channels into the board is definitely feasible if you don't mind
    swapping inputs occasionally (patch bay time!).
    
    len.
    

    
    Re: Fostex
    
    The Fostex 8-track reel to reel is 1/4"....That gives me funny feelings
    with respect to bandwidth, S/N,alignment, phase errors etc. I'd
    opt for a real 1/2" 8 track, like the Tascam 38. My freind just
    got a quote of $1800 at Sam Ash, over the phone, but CASH TALKS
    on 48th Street...
    
    Len, how do feel about the 1/4" vs. 1/2" issue? 
    
    CdH
    
    
    
    

    Well, since you ask - 8 tracks on 1/4" is like 4 tracks on 1/8",
    i.e., same track width as cassette.  You can make up a little for
    track width with tape speed; how fast does the Fostex run?
    
    There's another side to this, which is availability of tape.
    10.5" reels of 1/2" tape run about $45, and at 15 ips last a little
    more than 30 minutes.  Regardless of cost, these reels are not as
    readily available as cassettes or 7.5" reels of 1/4" tape.  So if
    you need more tape you can't just run down to the local audio
    emporium and snap up another reel or two.
    
    Be that as it may, I'll take 1/2" over 1/4" anyday.  The quality
    difference is real.
    
    Note that Tascam's 2 and 4 track reel to reel decks use 1/4" and
    1/2" tape respectively, making their track widths another factor
    of two wider.  Even more S/N!
    
    len.
    

    The overall bandwidth of the A-8 is allright. The only problem is 
    how you get it. Because of the narrow tracks you have to adjust
    the bias level very high to get a proper response at high
    frequencies. As a counter effect for this a boost (a sort of "knee")
    starts to build up at around 70-120 Hz. So you have to find a 
    compromise between the lack of highs and the boosty bottom.
    During the one and a half year time that I had one I found an adecuate
    solution to live with the "knee", but to use a graphic EQ adjusted
    to compensate for it on input for every take I recorded.
    Ofcourse this doesn't sound very pro, but this way I was completely
    satisfied with it's response. 
    The machine would have a very poor S/N without it's inbuilt
    Dolby C. That noise reduction method however seems to work very
    well on it, giving a S/N of 80 db or so. So no problem with that
    either. 
    To me the most amazing thing about the machine is that: "no problems
    with the alignment either". 
    
    I don't know about "phase errors" in this case. Perhaps some other 
    A-8 user can tell us about the situation in that. 
    
    The worst point in the A-8 is crosstalk. If you have a very
    critical environment, that "feature" might play a nasty role.
    It's not that bad however. With my way of recording, it really
    didn't bother me at all.
     
    So overally I was very satisfied with the machine. As a reference I 
    can tell that for a short time I also used an OTARI 1/2" 8-track. 
    The very expensive one (I don't remember the type now). 
    From those two I'd take the A-8 anytime. The reason being S/N.
    With the Otari (with many others too, I believe) you would need 
    an external noise reduction, and they cost. With the A-8 it's just 
    so simple to produce good quality recordings.
    
    However keeping with the original topic, I would once more like
    to advertise the TASCAM Portastudio 236. A 4-track cassette deck
    with a 6-chan mixer, parametric EQ, DBX, etc. etc. I have only
    used the 244, it's predecessor, but it was a dream machine...
    So easy to use an yet so good recording quality. 
    
    It is so versatile that talking about recording technics with it
    would require at least another topic (maybe a book :-)). To correct
    one misconception you are not restricted to MONO recordings. You can
    do as many overdubs as you like, get a proper stereo mix and high
    quality sound. The restrictions are that you have to plan very
    carefully before the recording process and that you can't make
    corrections to your work later when you are past that stage of
    your sub-mix. 
    
    I'm sorry guys, I tend to get sentimental when talking about 
    toys I've loved.
    
    Timo
    

    One thing I have found about starting small and moving up is this:
    Working on a 4 track system causes you to be creative and think
    up front about how your song is constructed.  This is a lesson many
    engineers in 24 track studios could stand to learn.  If you have
    a lot of tracks, you might not exploit them to their best use.
    
    I have used many systems from 4 tracks to 24 tracks and agree with
    the theory that having the best technology is great as long as you
    know how to use it.  I think starting with 4 tracks is a super way
    to build the basic understanding and then move up when your pocket
    book and requirements grow.
    
    Syncing your sequencer to tape gives you 3 tracks for guitar, vocals,
    etc., which is enough for some good basic demos.
    
    		My $.02,
    		Derek

    Also  I would comment that having used both the potrastudio and
    then my 234, I notice that the 234 has a much better S/N performance
    than the porta studio. I also believe that the early portastudios
    had dolby instead of dbx for noise reduction.
    
    dave

    There is alot of good advice in this note.
    
    I also recommend a 244 or 246 4-trk/mixer Tascam.  For budget reasons
    it makes good sense.  But more importantly, it will be a great learning
    experience if your new to multi-track recording.
    
    There are three phases steps to multi-track recording:
    
    		1)  Laying down basic tracks
    		2)  Overdubbing (adding new stuff to whats aready down
    		    on tape)
    		3)  Mix down to stereo
    
    The same concepts apply to a Tascam 244, as for a 32 channel Mitsubishi
    into a 24-track Otari (Yes, Mitsubishi makes high-end pro gear. Where's
    that waitress?).  The Tascam manuals are also very good.
    
    I think it's important for today's musician to understand recording
    concepts.  Engineering and producing are not to be overlooked. 
    For me, the time behind the board is just as important as it is
    at a keyboard, sequencer, drum machine, or behind a guitar.
    
    DD

    re .18 - syncing a 4 track to tape and then putting "guitar, vocals,
    etc." leaves no room for the stuff driven by the sequencer!  If
    you resort to sequencing to use more synth voices than you have available
    at one time, or to use different voices from the same synth, you
    really have to do your track allocation very carefully.  Note that
    you must take as much advantage as you can of the "virtual track"
    notion - not actually putting synth voices on tape, but letting
    the sync track proxy for them until mixdown.
    
    Incidentally, I agree that you really shouldn't go for 8 tracks
    unless you've had some experience with 4 tracks.  A Portastudio
    (244 or 246) is an ideal way to to learn both multitracking and
    mixing.

    len.
    

    Well, I'm definitely new to multi-tracking (and finding recording
    in general to be a very hard frustrating, fault-revealing, black
    art that still manages to be fun somehow).  I haven't even finished
    our first demo and I'm already painfully aware of the limitations
    of 4-tracks.
    
    However, I have this idea about sync-ing with MIDI which (if it
    works) seems to mitigate most of the groans I've heard about giving
    up a track for MIDI sync.  I'd like to know if I'm naive, out of
    my mind, or perhaps slightly brilliant.
    
    My plan was always to delay putting the sequenced MIDI stuff on
    tape until the mastering process.   The idea is to get the stuff
    sequenced exactly how I want it and then record it all onto one
    track with a sorta quickie mix that would be used to record the
    next two tracks (for syncing purposes).   Then you either do
    your third track or bounce  the first two and do two more.
    
    When you've got all the audio (non-sequenced) tracks recorded.
    You hook your midi instruments up to another mixer, chain the 4-track
    to that mixer, and mix everything at once (you will probably need
    to having fleeting fingers of course).
    
    Now the limitation of this are that if you have more sequenced
    parts than you have non-multi-timbral MIDI instruments, you are
    of course out of luck.  But otherwise (my ESQ-1 is multi-timbral
    and stereo), won't this work?
    
    	db

    This is the stupidest idea I've ever heard of!   :^)
    
    Please don't flame me. I know it's stupid 'cuz I tried it!
    
    Trying to sync to machines by starting them at the same time is
    all but impossible...
    
              The speed on the tape deck(s) drifts...
              You didn't start the both at the same time...
              Does 120 BPM mean 120 or 120.000 or 120.0000....?
    
    Before I sound like my curmugeonly old self, let me say I have pulled
    it off a couple times for short periods of time. I did a cover of
    The Beatles "Because" and flew the horns in using this method. Due
    to the short time period (16 bars?) there wasn't a whole lot of
    time for the 'unsync' to become noticeable.
    
    It's a good bet though if you try to do an entire song this way,
    the tape will be playing the bridge while the sequencer is chugging
    along through the chorus....
    
    Edd
    

    re -1 and -2...
    
    and this is why tape tone-to-MIDI-timing devices were created..
    to lock your sequencer to your tape !
    
    there are no stupid questions...

    This ("syncing" without a sync track) might work if everbody's nice
    and warmed up (no clock drift), your recorder has rock stable timing,
    and you don't touch the tempo knob(s) on anything.  But I think
    the deck's stacked against you.  Especially if you can't get everything
    done in one session.
    
    len.
     

    If you're dead set on trying this (I was) here's a hint...
    
    Any sequenced parts *must* start someplace other than measure 1,
    beat 1. The only thing you'll get is ulcers trying to get the 
    sequencer to start at the same time as the tape. You'll need either
    a 1 or 2 bar count to tap your fingers to before hitting the start
    button on the sequencer.
    
    A 1 or 2 bar lead-in on the tape will fill the bill if all the
    instruments must start at the same time. Use it for finger-syncing
    the sequencer and then edit it out.
    
    It amazing how much rock-steady isn't.
    
    Edd 

    Hey, a track's a track, no matter what.  Especially with 4 tracks,
    giving up one for sync hurts more than when you've got 8 (don't
    hear me complaining much lately, do you?).  Be that as it may, what
    you propose to do does make sense, and it's "obvious" to those of
    us with mixerless decks (i.e., *all* our mixing/recording is done
    through an outboard board).  I guess it seems less obvious if your
    mixer is built into your recorder (a la the Portastudio and its
    various clones and near-clones).  And yes, I frequently do wish
    to reuse a particular synth (even the bi-timbral ones I've got)
    on multiple tracks, which necessitates a sync track and uses up
    additional tracks unless I bounce them down.
    
    Incidentally, this notion (leave all the MIDI stuff 'til mixdown,
    driven off a sync track) is sometimes called "virtual tracks".
    
    len.
    

    Uhm, where did Dave's clarification go?   It was here just a minute
    ago...
    
    len.
    

    re: .28
    
>    Uhm, where did Dave's clarification go?   It was here just a minute ago...

    Here it is, I just wanted to reword it a bit so I deleted the old
    one and REPLY/LAST-ed.
    
    I'm afraid I haven't explained my idea very well.
    
    I absolutely intend to devote one track to MIDI-sync at all times.
    I AM NOT trying to start two machines simultaneously (we're talking
    about a guy who can't even punch-in and out at the right moments.)
    
    The reason I brought this up was in response to Len's comment
    about "syncing to a 4 track leaves no room for stuff driven
    by the sequencer" in .21.  My first thought was "why is he
    recording the sequenced stuff at all?"  
    
    Unfortunately, I didn't understand the rest of his comment initially.  
    Had I understood that, I would have realized that Len (and probably 
    most people) are doing exactly what I proposed, AND there are times
    when you can't do that (not enough synths, or no multi-timbral synths).
        
    Main thing I didn't consider was that not everyone has a multi-timbral
    synthesizer (or a dozen TX7's).
    
    If you don't have an 8 track, you should have at least one good
    general purpose multi-timbral synthesizer and a sequencer.
    
    	db - who will write a "new kid" note when he's finished reading
    	     through the history of this file