TAXI.com

Hey All,

Someone posted on a Facebook music page the song "My Love Is Alive" by Gary Wright, which got me thinking... I know that recording was done on a 2" 16-track tape deck, which is one of the reasons why it sounds so HUGE. But do such tape decks still exist? The answer is YES, and I found a company that completely restores MCI tape recorders from the ground up!

What makes this video by the company owner (Chris Mara) so interesting is that he puts into words what I just "feel" about classic tape recordings, but can't put it into technical terms like he does. Check this out:

https://vintageking.com/mara-machines-m ... 2-16-track

Ern

Still got my TASCAM 38 8-track 1/2" reel-to-reel. Not an MCI, but semi-pro.

waveheavy wrote:Still got my TASCAM 38 8-track 1/2" reel-to-reel. Not an MCI, but semi-pro.

Great minds think alike! I recorded many, many great recordings on a TASCAM 38! I'd use track 8 for SMPTE, so there were 7 tracks for everything else other than keyboards and sometimes Midi drums, but I never bounced once, and it sounded fantastic! I would record WAY into the red with no distortion (and no tape hiss).

Here's a cool story: My EXACT same setup (a 38 and a Soundcraft 1-S 16 channel board) was used for the Eurhythmics first album! The one with "Here Comes That Rain Again" etc. The tape gave it that nice bottom end, and the Soundcraft (which I still own and use) has fantastic microphone preamps and that "British EQ" that made that Eurhythmics album so crispy on the high end. What a classic combination! And they didn't even use very good microphones to record that. I would often rent a Neumann U-87 for vocals.

Personally, I think it's very helpful to learn recording engineering on analog gear, and then use many of those techniques in the digital domain.

Ern

Later the model JH-24 appeared which had inferior sounding electronics and was introduced when Sony bought MCI. It was transformerless and used more ICs than discreet components

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Center_Incorporated

Maybe something to consider and research a little further.

OMG, that is beautiful! My wife would probably kill me if I bought one, but at least I would die Happy :)

https://vintageking.com/rupert-neve-des ... 00138-used

https://youtu.be/ItL4VFxpmv8
you can download the files on the youtube video, look under specialty and you'll find the neve 5042 and 542
http://www.zenproaudio.com/clipalator

What about the Neve portico 5042 or the 500 series 542?? It's essentially an analog tape emulator. At least it's got real transformers, unlike some of the MCIs. It's certainly a lot cheaper.

http://rupertneve.com/products/542/

I love me some tape gear, but I'm pretty much over the 'analog' thing; I worked out how to make it happen in the box, and mostly it's simple, judicious use of just a few flavors of saturation that does the trick. Trying to find decent tape these days is a fool's errand, and if you don't know how to calibrate and align your MCI or Studer or Revox, Ampex, what have you, you are way better off with the UAD plugin(s), and that might be just as true if you do know how, cuz NOS headstacks are getting hard to find. The interesting thing I found whilst listening to a very great deal of ahem, vintage music on modern high-res monitors is just how distorted the bass was on track that read as 'clean' over AM radio. I bet if you listen to John Entwistle's tracks in isolation, you'd get a rude surprise.

mojobone wrote:I love me some tape gear, but I'm pretty much over the 'analog' thing; I worked out how to make it happen in the box, and mostly it's simple, judicious use of just a few flavors of saturation that does the trick. Trying to find decent tape these days is a fool's errand, and if you don't know how to calibrate and align your MCI or Studer or Revox, Ampex, what have you, you are way better off with the UAD plugin(s), and that might be just as true if you do know how, cuz NOS headstacks are getting hard to find. The interesting thing I found whilst listening to a very great deal of ahem, vintage music on modern high-res monitors is just how distorted the bass was on track that read as 'clean' over AM radio. I bet if you listen to John Entwistle's tracks in isolation, you'd get a rude surprise.

Mojo, did you watch the video? The owner talks about every issue you bring up, and has thought them all through. He even has a tape supplier.

As far as "distorted bass," there's nothing wrong with that! Listen to James Jamerson's isolated bass tracks on YouTube. They're dirtier than the L.A. River! That's why Jamerson's tracks stand out so much in the mix... And Entwistle's tracks are perfect for that style of music. He INTENDED his bass to sound dirty, and that's all tube amp distortion. I think of The Who as a lead bass player and a rhythm guitar player (plus wild drums). There would have been no Chris Squire (or Geddy Lee) without John Entwistle showing them the way... Squire had a much cleaner sound with adding that high end, but listen to Geddy's isolated tracks sometime. EXTREMELY dirty! It's just a power trio thang, I guess.

Ern

Quite the machine!!!

Still have my 4 track 10" reel to reel Teac 3340S, my Fostex 8 track reel to reel and Teac half track!

And I am using them again now for vintage editing of tapes I have.

Ain't nothing like the reel thing baby!

Linda C

Tunesmith wrote:Still have my 4 track 10" reel to reel Teac 3340S

Wow! I started on a 3340S. The band's drummer also bought one, so we stereo bounced between the two. But when I got my Soundcraft 1-S board, THAT'S when things started sounding almost pro quality! I still own and use that daily. You can't beat the mic preamps in it; plus, it's a +4 (professional) level mixer... My Tascam 38 1/2" eight-track is history, but I refurbished my Tascam 22-2 mastering deck. Sounds fantastic! Those analog decks loved to be hit really hard with the input. People can't believe I never used noise reduction like Dolby with it, because there was ZERO tape hiss. That's what you get when you record analog WAY into the red (up to a point, of course!).

Ern