Reel to Reel workflow and ancillary equipment

[bajwe]

I have just acquired a Otari MX5050BQ2 (4 track) with the aim of doing my own recordings for my own use - think acoustic jazz ensembles (which may include a vocalist). Occasionally, I will try multitracking production down the line. Aiming to learn about mic recording techniques and enjoying a simple/minimalist record to play chain. I need to build up my microphone options, but was wondering what is a workable workflow and supporting equipment (modern mixers, preamps) I should be using? It will mostly be one/few-takes of students (there are several music schools and conservatories close by), as I won't be able to pay them (and keep them in the studio) - they will get a separately recorded digital binaural head version for their trouble.

I presume it will be easiest just to mix(er) down to two tracks (as that will be my playback) which I then replay. How could I use my other tracks in that setting (alternate mic setup, centre channel)?

What works for you (on a budget)?

Thanks

 

[Blumlein 88]

I've too little experience too long ago on RTR. These forums might help as they are dedicated to tape and recording.

Forum list

We discuss cassette, reel and all other types of tape equipment, along with recording techniques, vintage and modern audio and video gear, restoration, service and repair, and all aspects of music, performance and reproduction.

www.tapeheads.net

HomeRecording.com

Home Recording dot com is a forum for anyone interested in home recording, project studios, mixing their own music and learning how to use studio and computer music products.

homerecording.com

There are people here who can give good info too.

If you've never done recording, get a couple mikes (with a mixer/preamp) and start to learn. I found it useful to find a local band or group that would let me record their practice sessions. You get some real world experience without it being under pressure or in a crowded performance. This is one of those things where theory is good, but actually doing is a never ending source of learning if you pay attention. So don't try and go for the ultimate everything all at once. But the experience is more informative if you've read about recording/miking techniques first.

 

[dasdoing]

You want to stay analog?

I've too little experience too long ago on RTR. These forums might help as they are dedicated to tape and recording.

Forum list

We discuss cassette, reel and all other types of tape equipment, along with recording techniques, vintage and modern audio and video gear, restoration, service and repair, and all aspects of music, performance and reproduction.

www.tapeheads.net

HomeRecording.com

Home Recording dot com is a forum for anyone interested in home recording, project studios, mixing their own music and learning how to use studio and computer music products.

homerecording.com

There are people here who can give good info too.

If you've never done recording, get a couple mikes (with a mixer/preamp) and start to learn. I found it useful to find a local band or group that would let me record their practice sessions. You get some real world experience without it being under pressure or in a crowded performance. This is one of those things where theory is good, but actually doing is a never ending source of learning if you pay attention. So don't try and go for the ultimate everything all at once. But the experience is more informative if you've read about recording/miking techniques first.

thought you would suggest a Blumlein pair lol

 

[Cbdb2]

I have just acquired a Otari MX5050BQ2 (4 track) with the aim of doing my own recordings for my own use - think acoustic jazz ensembles (which may include a vocalist). Occasionally, I will try multitracking production down the line. Aiming to learn about mic recording techniques and enjoying a simple/minimalist record to play chain. I need to build up my microphone options, but was wondering what is a workable workflow and supporting equipment (modern mixers, preamps) I should be using? It will mostly be one/few-takes of students (there are several music schools and conservatories close by), as I won't be able to pay them (and keep them in the studio) - they will get a separately recorded digital binaural head version for their trouble.

I presume it will be easiest just to mix(er) down to two tracks (as that will be my playback) which I then replay. How could I use my other tracks in that setting (alternate mic setup, centre channel)?

What works for you (on a budget)?

Thanks

With 4 tracks I would use a stereo pair for the group and than separate mics for the vocal/soloist or the piano (which is often to roomy in the pair). The trick is getting a proper balance in the pair by moving it and the musicians, if there not pros this ballance will change, so, the solo mics are there to give the soloists more presence if needed and to adjust there level in the mix.
Why give them a binaural mix, thats not really suitable for most people.
Why the tape machine? Using tape properly takes experience. The machine electronics need adjustment for different tape, the heads need to be clean, aligned and not too worn, even a dried up pinch roller can cause issues (how old is that deck?). Tape costs money and wears out. A good 4 input mic pre/ADC costs the same as a few reels of tape, is maintenance free, sounds better, is much more portable (with a laptop/ipad) and includes compressors, EQs, a mixer, etc.

 

[DVDdoug]

I'd use the reel-to-reel as a display piece or conversation piece.

There are lots of advantages to digital recording... and a few disadvantages.

For mixing & editing, you can't beat digital. Editing/copying is lossless and you can do lots of things that are impossible with analog. And of course, the quality is better. Presumably, you'll want digital copies in the end anyway.

If you don't have a desktop/tower computer with a soundcard and line-in, you'll need an audio interface. Most audio interfaces have switchable mic/line inputs so you could bypass the tape machine. And if you are planning on mixing 4-tracks digitally, you'll need a 4-channel interface anyway.

Audacity is a free open-source audio editor (which can also record/digitize from a soundcard/interface), but if you wanted to go full-digital with multi-track recording, Audacity is not really good for that, and you'd be better off with a full DAW application.

The main disadvantage to recording with a computer is that there is more to go wrong... Computers are the least reliable gadgets we own! And, the multi-tasking operating system (which is always multitasking) sometimes "gets in the way" and causes glitches. And unlike a tape machine, you can't monitor what you've just recorded a fraction of a second ago. Sometimes you don't know there was a problem until the next day. But pro studios use computers everyday and if you have a dedicated computer you are less likely to mess something up.

A stand-alone recorder or "PortaStudio" can give you better reliability than a computer or tape machine, and you can still edit & mix on a computer.

and supporting equipment (modern mixers, preamps) I should be using?

Check out Musician's Friend, or Sweetwater, or visit your local music store. A mixer with USB doesn't necessarily cost more than a completely-analog mixer, but the USB port on most inexpensive mixers only puts-out the stereo mix so you can't multitrack digitally.

Multi-tracking interfaces start at around $200 USD.

 

[Cbdb2]

Most multi mic input ADCs come with DAW software (usually a lite version but still fully capable for recording and editing.) My MOTU interface came with Digital performer. I can monitor the output while recording ( low latency ) so I can hear any overloads or other problems. I run it on a non dedicated Microsoft Surface and use it when jamming for the vocals. In 2 years of weekly 5 hour jams its crashed 3 or 4 times. Thats reliable enough for most.

 

[Philbo King]

With 4 tracks I would use a stereo pair for the group and than separate mics for the vocal/soloist or the piano (which is often to roomy in the pair). The trick is getting a proper balance in the pair by moving it and the musicians, if there not pros this ballance will change, so, the solo mics are there to give the soloists more presence if needed and to adjust there level in the mix.
Why give them a binaural mix, thats not really suitable for most people.
Why the tape machine? Using tape properly takes experience. The machine electronics need adjustment for different tape, the heads need to be clean, aligned and not too worn, even a dried up pinch roller can cause issues (how old is that deck?). Tape costs money and wears out. A good 4 input mic pre/ADC costs the same as a few reels of tape, is maintenance free, sounds better, is much more portable (with a laptop/ipad) and includes compressors, EQs, a mixer, etc.

I remember an albums worth of 2" tape reels plus the 1/2" masters filling the trunk of a car, and costing about $500 in 1978 dollars.

4-track was a bit more reasonable, though with inherent limitations.

Given a choice, I would never go back to tape. But follow your muse!

 

[bajwe]

Thank you everyone for your advice.

I'm a bit clunky on the forum reply format so forgive me if my replies are inefficient.

If you've never done recording, get a couple mikes (with a mixer/preamp) and start to learn. I found it useful to find a local band or group that would let me record their practice sessions. You get some real world experience without it being under pressure or in a crowded performance. This is one of those things where theory is good, but actually doing is a never ending source of learning if you pay attention. So don't try and go for the ultimate everything all at once. But the experience is more informative if you've read about recording/miking techniques first.

With 4 tracks I would use a stereo pair for the group and than separate mics for the vocal/soloist or the piano (which is often to roomy in the pair). The trick is getting a proper balance in the pair by moving it and the musicians, if there not pros this ballance will change, so, the solo mics are there to give the soloists more presence if needed and to adjust there level in the mix.

I've got myself a couple of old-school recording books and will start looking through those dedicated forums. Three of my children are musicians at various stages in their musical journey - with one still under my roof - so I can practice on them. We have a local music school where you can hire a room with a grand piano - which I understand to be a real challenge for both recording and playback - I'm going for palpable presence! I do intend to find some sympathetic local bands/musicians.

For mixing & editing, you can't beat digital. Editing/copying is lossless and you can do lots of things that are impossible with analog. And of course, the quality is better. Presumably, you'll want digital copies in the end anyway.

If you don't have a desktop/tower computer with a soundcard and line-in, you'll need an audio interface. Most audio interfaces have switchable mic/line inputs so you could bypass the tape machine. And if you are planning on mixing 4-tracks digitally, you'll need a 4-channel interface anyway.

I have a Focusrite Clarett 2Pre (originally for my daughter's recording projects and REW - with an earthworks measurement mic). I intend to buy a stereo mic pair (either Rode M5s or Behringer C-2s). It sounds like I will need to up my inputs in future to match the 4 Track.

To start I was going to use the Clarett as first part of the chain after the mics (recording to a DAW - I think I'm going to go with Reaper on my Surface Pro) and use the direct monitoring outs to feed the Otari (just 2 to start with) - giving me a parallel digital and (admittedly redundant) analog recording chain. Any processing I would do in the digital - and that's what I will provide to the musicians for their use. I get to keep the analog master and will get a mixer to play-back/play-with those into my listening system (in real time - I am refurbishing a pair of Altec 604g to complete the mock studio vibe). I'd like to get to recording with a Decca tree (my daughter is involved in choirs).

It seems the weakness with this will be not using a mixer (and EQ, compression etc) going into the Clarett/Otari - but I sort of want to keep the analog side of the recording chain as minimal as possible - and use the DAW for cleaning up the published recordings. How important is a pre-mixer/processing in practice? - I could add them between the Clarett and Otari. Once I get a mixer I suppose I can use it both sides of the Otari (mixing in/mixing 'down' outs) if needed (does a bigger mixer desk with buses allow me to do this with one mixer for both sides simultaneously? - clearly I need to do more reading.)

Thanks again.

 

[bajwe]

I'd use the reel-to-reel as a display piece or conversation piece.

I am shallow - and this was my original intention. In fact, my plan A was to buy a donor - just hook up the meters, and rig the motors to spin - perhaps running off a room mic feed so they don't mess with my all digital chain. What got me into trouble was it needed to be local, cheap, black (my one rule for my system - I'm shallow) and 10 inches (did I mention I'm shallow?).

Why the tape machine? Using tape properly takes experience. The machine electronics need adjustment for different tape, the heads need to be clean, aligned and not too worn, even a dried up pinch roller can cause issues (how old is that deck?). Tape costs money and wears out. A good 4 input mic pre/ADC costs the same as a few reels of tape, is maintenance free, sounds better, is much more portable (with a laptop/ipad) and includes compressors, EQs, a mixer, etc.

This Otari (MX5050 BQII 1986) came available. I had seen a lot of Akais, Nationals and few Sonys - but my black rule was the constraint - I had played with painting a donor machine - but that seemed too shallow! The Otari was gun metal - and had four meters! It also seemed to work according to the ad. I went around to check it out/collect from the seller's tech guy - who refused to do anymore RTRs. He proceeded to show me how complicated it was, and accordingly everything that could go wrong. The kicker was that everything actually worked. It wasn't cheap, but it was sold on the basis that it will turn into a black hole - which is what I am going to call it.

So plan B is to actually use it - in parallel to digital recording I am already familiar with. But I am going to try to skim around the event horizon by keeping my recording chain minimalist. I am prepared to recap, lubricate and use a multimeter. I have joined a facebook page and I am astounded at the number of things that can go wrong - but I have a plan A if needed.

So here it is - my black hole. As you can see it needs a clean.

 

[bajwe]

Why give them a binaural mix, thats not really suitable for most people.

I have a diy head (pic below). My producer/recording style is going to be "live studio". With headphone listening to streaming, and the uptake in Sony 360 and Apple spatial, I am hoping a "real" binaural recording would be a good (and cheaper) alternative album/EP for a musician/band.

The flocked polystyrene head has a couple of holes to carry the senheiser ambio mic/apogee ADC (Apple lightning only - it gets recorded independently of the Otari/DAW initially). I am toying with building a torso for him.

His name is "Noir". He is quiet but a good listener. Looping the lead through the headband is just for the photoshoot.

 

[Cbdb2]

I am shallow - and this was my original intention. In fact, my plan A was to buy a donor - just hook up the meters, and rig the motors to spin - perhaps running off a room mic feed so they don't mess with my all digital chain. What got me into trouble was it needed to be local, cheap, black (my one rule for my system - I'm shallow) and 10 inches (did I mention I'm shallow?).



This Otari (MX5050 BQII 1986) came available. I had seen a lot of Akais, Nationals and few Sonys - but my black rule was the constraint - I had played with painting a donor machine - but that seemed too shallow! The Otari was gun metal - and had four meters! It also seemed to work according to the ad. I went around to check it out/collect from the seller's tech guy - who refused to do anymore RTRs. He proceeded to show me how complicated it was, and accordingly everything that could go wrong. The kicker was that everything actually worked. It wasn't cheap, but it was sold on the basis that it will turn into a black hole - which is what I am going to call it.

So plan B is to actually use it - in parallel to digital recording I am already familiar with. But I am going to try to skim around the event horizon by keeping my recording chain minimalist. I am prepared to recap, lubricate and use a multimeter. I have joined a facebook page and I am astounded at the number of things that can go wrong - but I have a plan A if needed.

So here it is - my black hole. As you can see it needs a clean.

View attachment 340173

View attachment 340173

How worn are the heads?

 

[Cbdb2]

I have a diy head (pic below). My producer/recording style is going to be "live studio". With headphone listening to streaming, and the uptake in Sony 360 and Apple spatial, I am hoping a "real" binaural recording would be a good (and cheaper) alternative album/EP for a musician/band.

The flocked polystyrene head has a couple of holes to carry the senheiser ambio mic/apogee ADC (Apple lightning only - it gets recorded independently of the Otari/DAW initially). I am toying with building a torso for him.

His name is "Noir". He is quiet but a good listener. Looping the lead through the headband is just for the photoshoot.
View attachment 340188

Many years ago we recorded small classical ensembles ( from duos to 12 piece) often with a piano. These were live performances with an audience. Some of the musicians complained about the "unsightly" microphones (usually a pair and a spot mic or two) so one of my colleagues put a Neumann dummy head in the front row instead. The musicians who were not picky about the sound as long as you could make out the performance heard it and hated it (it sucked, roomy, boomy and mush) and never complained about our mics again.
If your room sucks so will your recording.

 

[Philbo King]

I still have an old 3340S Teac 4 track. These days the only use it gets is as a sound processor. When I feel it'll help a song, I feed 4 stems to the record head, get it back from the playback head, directly back into the DAW, for a touch of magnetic saturation & compression.

Sometimes it's magic. Other times, not so much.

 

[Cbdb2]

I still have an old 3340S Teac 4 track. These days the only use it gets is as a sound processor. When I feel it'll help a song, I feed 4 stems to the record head, get it back from the playback head, directly back into the DAW, for a touch of magnetic saturation & compression.

Sometimes it's magic. Other times, not so much.

Thats the reason some pros still use tape, as an effect.