Print mix on a 2" 16 track machine vs a 2 track 1/4 machine

I’ve never tried working that way, but worked a bunch on an mm1200 at Hyde Street that had a 16 track headstack and I would think it would sound very cool, workflow challenges aside. Those Beyer transformers on each channel saturate pretty easily, could be something to watch out for.

I have been through this whole line of questioning before (and currently am going through it again) as to how I want to approach and deal with tape. I've only been able to do this somewhat accurately with Otari tape machines, so some of this will be kind of "universal to most tape machine" things, but a lot of it will be really specific to Otaris. 10 years ago or so, I was working at a recording school that had quite a few tape machines (A few Studer 16 tracks, Otari 16 and 24 track machines, an Otari MTR 2 track, nice Ampex ATR). I was lucky enough to be able to do a bunch of direct comparisons of the different machines and have some fun. On the Otari's specifically, the 16 track (I think it was an MX, it's been too long) and the 1/4" 2 track (an MTR) both had very similar circuits for each individual channel. The MTR had removable cards, the MX didn't but the sonic parts of the circuit paths were very similar. The heads were also the same between them aside from the channel count. I did a few shootouts where I splt off to both machines at the same time with some stereo mixes, taking 2 channels off the 16 track machine and 2 channels off the stereo machine. Both machines were calibrated regularly and to the same spec's. I could not tell any difference sonically, they might as well have been the same machine (because they were).

Now, that's Otari specific. As far as a Studer 16 track vs 2 track, who knows. I'm sure there would be a lot more variables involved, I have no idea if a 2 track A820 would be similar to the 16 track ones. As far as your considerations of 2" 16 track vs 1/4 2 track for track width and what not, I would agree with you. There's not really a difference, if they're the same machines and circuitry that have been aligned the same way, they should sound the same (and do sound the same in my experience). I don't think you're missing anything. 2 track machines are much more managable and not as much of a money pit, 8-16 track pro machines (in my experience) are much more of an investment as there's always something to deal with. And it can be anything/everything from alignment drift between channels to just being at a statistically higher chance of parts failing. A smaller 2 track machine is no doubt, much more managable!

I went through something similar this year as I wanted a tape machine. I was pretty sure I wanted an Otari as I've been able to do sonic comparisons of many different heavy hitters and actually preferred the Otari MTR series. I liked the sound they imparted, and it doesn't hurt that they're some of the most reliable and well built considering they were coming out of the tail end of tapes peak in the mid to late 1980's. I ended up with a 2 track 1/4" Otari MTR-12 (https://youtu.be/Iduz0hXWs8w?si=qLq_k02cV35wVkC_). I figured I didn't need, or wanted the hassle of even a nicer 8 track 1" machine. It would have been nice to do a small drum session ocasionally, but I knew I could get away with 2 tracks for the vast majority of what would actually end up happening to tape. I've even got a good system down for overdubbing into ProTools off the repro heads in real time if I want a vocal to tape or something... I think it's a good way to go.

If you're at all on the fence about jumping into tape, I would suggest starting with a good 2 track machine. Sonically, you're not going to be missing out on anything. You can always dump digital files to tape after the fact, the only downside is that for larger mic sound recordings (like drums) you can't dump 2 tracks at a time and expect them all to phase align nicely after the fact. You'll have to get a general stereo mix of anything more than 2 mics and dump that 2 track mix to the machine. Work that way for a while, and if by some miracle you end up with a lot of interest and clients that will give you a reason to justify moving up to a higher track count machine, go for it! 

And you think that would be as good or viable as using a dedicated 2 track? That's kind of my dilemma. I don't want to do it if there is even a slight sonic benefit to using a dedicated Studer or Telefunken 2 track for printing the mix to tape. If there is zero difference other than just the different sound of the machines themselves (irrelevant in my opinion), then it would be ideal for me.

 I'm not on the fence about jumping into tape, that part is a no brainer for me at this point. What I'm specifically pondering is if I have to get both a tracking machine AND a seperate mixdown machine, or if I can do both processes on the 2" Ampex without compromising on audio quality and sonics. Work flow or the business side of things is irrelevant to me, as I flee whenever clients come knocking. I don't deal with clients, I only do what I want to do, as working with clients would mean I would have to settle with less than perfection constantly, which is not really why I'm in the game. I make my money touring with artists and doing sessions for them, so the recording part of it is just for me to get as close as I can to perfection in a way that commercial engineers just don't ever get the chance to do because of time constraints and budget. I'm talking spending 200+ hour on one song, stuff like that. Really pushing the boundaries of what is possible to achieve sonically in ways that is impossible to do in a business environment. So I'm kind of free to do whatever stupid thing I want as long as I have the funds for it. It doesn't have to be a good investment.

Jumping into tape for drum tracking specifically is something I feel is natural at this point. I don't want to track everything to tape, as I need the clarity and detail I get with digital paired with nickel capsuled KM54's or M582's for stringed instruments. But combining this exceptional clarity with the fullness and organic sound of drums tracked through 16 track 2" tape is something I feel can unlock something that can do wonders for me sonically, especially if I'm using the Ampex in a subtle way.

I think you bring up a really good point about a smaller 2 track machine being less hassle in regards to maintenance though. I guess there isn't a good solution for that if I actually want to track drums through tape, which is a big part of what I want to do.

Really? I've always heard that the process was to mix onto a 2-track machine after the fact. I'm glad to know people apparently did it with 2" machines as well. Would you say there is any sonic benefit to using a dedicated 2-track machine instead of the 16 track 2" I'm thinking of getting?

I've used this particular machine a bit, as it belongs to a colleague I've worked with quite a bit. Apparently the heads are fine, but I'm going to have to check it out more in depth if I decide to pull the trigger on this. I don't mind the transport actually. It's not like all the Studers I've worked with in the past, but it's growing on me. Especially since I'm not planning on doing anything crazy with it. Just tracking a drum kit and then dumping into PT is enough for me. And off course printing the mix to it, if it turns out to be a good way of doing it. If there are no drawbacks to using it like that, I won't have to get both a tracking machine and a 2-track, which would save me substantial amounts of money.

Use the Ampex - IMO forget the rest unless you can get hold of an Ampex 2tk.
The others will be struggling at 20k. A properly aligned Ampex will be sonically superior to the other options.
Studer would be the next option - but high end detail will be subdued.
Just make sure if you mix to 16tk, that you don't use an edge track (IE: use track 2 & 3 to print to)

For complicated mixing on a budget it was a no brainer, you can punch in and make changes to the mix, the only way to do this otherwise was with a 3 track and synchronizer. You were still down 2 tracks for time code and guard track. Plus you didn’t lose sync. The technique became even more popular with the advent of ADATS and DA88’s. When PT became popular people realized how nice it was to have mixed down machine and multitrack sync’ed.

Ask anyone who ever had to deal with the expense and cost of a synchronizer.

You're over thinking it, the 16 track machine will give you more options to get tape compression and all the biasing, tape speed juice you could wan't, if i had the choice i'd love to have a 2" 16 ampex to use, but i would STILL dump to digital after capturing with tape, there are too many benefits in the daw world and i woudn't want to wear out tape, i'd use it to get the goods and bail, i likely wouldn't dump to 2 tracks on a master either, so 🤷🏻‍♂️ grain of salt

Hey Bob, check this thing out, all the good stuff short of tape compression, these are definitely on my xmass list

My experience: cut to tape, transfer to PT for mix, print mixes to something vibey (Burl, 1/4", Silver Bullet in front or some normal converters).

This is the way.

You just need the tape sound, period. Whether it’s before or after it really doesn’t matter. Yeah, starting and staying on tape gets a rounder tone. But it’s slight to me, like VF14 vs a substitute tube in a u47. Would I still use a “flawed” u47? Definitely.

The dropout issue with modern tapes that Bob O refers to is common. However some have said it’s due to lose oxide, er, ‘tape dust’.. so the fix is to before your record you hold a cotton swap against the tape and wind through the reel. I’ve tried it and had success, I haven’t done many reels though. It seems the more the new tapes are used, and the more the heads are cleaned, the less an issue it becomes. And some have said the manufacturer had addressed this. Unfortunately there’s so much new old stock reels out there it might be tough to get the latest made reel. Not that it matters, as long as you swab it until the cotton is clean, do some test recordings, a reel can last a while. Very different than old days where 1-pass could literally mean 1 pass and engineers could grab a new reel. Now we have to prove it works first. you can punch in over any dropouts.

As for bouncing..

MM1200 I’m pretty sure is before microprocessor speed control. IF Sooo.. its speed is derived from the 60Hz wall voltage. And it will have a little tone generator synth, makes a sinewave tone that tells the motors to match that tone. So this is what controls speed. If you’ve used an analog synth, you know it won’t stay in tune until it’s totally hot. You have to tune and re-tune every so often. Not an issue in the 24/7 studio days, it never got turned off… so if you go for it, be prepared to start it up a good 12 hours before you plan to align it. And figure to leave it on for a few days if you are doing a session.

There’s a way around this: slave it to microprocessor. Which is how the studios used all the 1970’s machines into the following decades. There were dedicated boxes that did it. Like “Timeline Lynx”. You could also stripe SMPTE on the last track and get it to lock to PT, and get a sample accurate capture.. with some heroic effort.

Lastly 16 tracks were mostly 2 track machines, that became 4 tracks, then 8 tracks, then 16. So it’s likely the same machine as 2 track, just more channels and bigger tape- usually- and I don’t know Ampex! 16 track was mostly popular in a small golden window between 69-75, where 8 track was likely more common, and then 24 track basically made them unpopular. Since the motors were likely designed for 2 track, the heavy 2” reels can make them sluggish as speed can chug.. making that famous classic rock smear