|
Post by illacov on Mar 8, 2017 17:12:40 GMT -6
He said they were hitting red @ +12. That means peaks pushing well over +18 above 185nW/m. After listening to the album, I kind of find it hard to believe. Maybe it's a minneapolis thing or maybe a cool quote for the magazine showing how slamming they were.... LOL Still, there's not much distortion there from what I can remember. (Been awhile since listening to it.) That's exactly what I said. But distortion if achieved a certain way can make certain sounds appear cleaner in a big production so....... Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by nobtwiddler on Mar 8, 2017 20:07:47 GMT -6
Michael Bienhorn recorded and produced a Ozzie record with 2 Studer 800's locked together at 7.5 ips. The machines were both 2 inch 8 track.
Don't know what the alignment was, but I can probably find out. Not really a fan, but it did sound quite good!
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 8, 2017 21:32:45 GMT -6
I applied some Scotch tape to the Enter button on my keyboard. Sounds really vibey.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 8, 2017 21:33:34 GMT -6
It was about 1/2"
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 8, 2017 21:46:27 GMT -6
Hopefully 2 Track and not 16 track.
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Mar 8, 2017 22:10:39 GMT -6
i'm biased.
sounds vibey also.
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Mar 8, 2017 22:23:09 GMT -6
I just put some duct tape on my mic cuz everyone says recording to tape is better than DAW but now my vocals sound like daffy.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 8, 2017 22:52:01 GMT -6
I just put some duct tape on my mic cuz everyone says recording to tape is better than DAW but now my vocals sound like daffy. No, no, no. Not THROUGH tape, TO tape. You've got to use Gaffers (duct tape is always exhibiting sticky shed syndrome) and put it AFTER the mic pre and compressor, but before your A/D. If you put it after the D/A conversion, you won't gain the max benefit from the tape.
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on Mar 8, 2017 22:59:06 GMT -6
Michael Bienhorn recorded and produced a Ozzie record with 2 Studer 800's locked together at 7.5 ips. The machines were both 2 inch 8 track. Don't know what the alignment was, but I can probably find out. Not really a fan, but it did sound quite good! what album was it ? I'd like to listen to it .
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,937
|
Post by ericn on Mar 9, 2017 11:13:30 GMT -6
I just put some duct tape on my mic cuz everyone says recording to tape is better than DAW but now my vocals sound like daffy. No, no, no. Not THROUGH tape, TO tape. You've got to use Gaffers (duct tape is always exhibiting sticky shed syndrome) and put it AFTER the mic pre and compressor, but before your A/D. If you put it after the D/A conversion, you won't gain the max benefit from the tape. Yep my cables with Gaffers tape markers have more depth, using 4 in gaffer gives more body than 2 in. Also no cheap Chinese Gaffers good old big buck made in USA!😎
|
|
|
Post by nobtwiddler on Mar 9, 2017 21:23:20 GMT -6
Yo Scum, Not sure what record it was, but here's a bit of info...
JRF Ultimate Analog MK II Ultimate Analog for Studer A820/827 Dramatic performance unmatched by any other format Whether tracking for music or mixing 5.1 Surround, Ultimate Analog MKII takes everything you like about analog recording and elevates it to a dramatically higher level of performance. Never before has a recording medium so successfully captured all the power, dynamics and delicate surrounding ambience ("air") of difficult-to-record musical instruments. Simply put, Ultimate Analog must be heard to be believed. Output 10dB to 12dB hotter than standard 24-track recorded at same level Near-digital dynamic range and signal-to-noise ratios Outstanding performance even at 15 ips with no noise reduction Playback compatibility with standard 16- and 24-track formats Separate ninth time code track at track 24 position Installation requires no modifications and no mechanical calibration after initial set-up Available for Studer A800, A820, A827, A80 and Otari MTR-90 JRF's guaranteed quality and service support Fat tracks for "in your face" sound Ultimate Analog from JRF was originally designed to record drums, bass and percussion instruments. In addition, our creative customers have found it to be a new and dynamic format for mixing and archiving 5.1 Surround projects. Users have described the results as "unbelievably fat," "in your face," and "bigger than life." (To put Ultimate Analog in perspective, imagine tracking on a stack of 1/2-inch 2-track heads.) The integrated time code track allows easy synchronizing for use in conjunction with any other analog or digital recording format–including one or two additional Ultimate Analog machines. Track width comparison
The Story Behind Ultimate Analog The original inspiration behind Ultimate Analog came from noted producer Michael Beinhorn, whose credits include Social Distortion, Ozzy Osbourne, Aerosmith, Soundgarden and the Red Hot Chili Peppers. He wanted a sound that would combine the pleasing subjective characteristics of analog with the quietness and dynamic range of digital.
Beinhorn consulted with Fletcher at Mercenary Audio about the possibility of creating a 2-inch 8-track recording format. Mercenary then contacted John French of JRF Magnetic Sciences, who designed and manufactured the original UltraAnalog headstacks that were first introduced in 1995. In 1996, the format name was changed to Ultimate Analog, and the new MKII version was introduced. Compatible with Studer and Otari Ultimate Analog MKII consists of three heads (erase, record and playback), each with eight wide-format audio tracks and a discrete time code track. The heads may be mounted on a customer's existing Studer A800/ A820/A827, A80, or Otari MTR-90 headblock, or fitted on a new (or reconditioned if available) headblock supplied by JRF. Ultimate Analog on MTR90 The eight audio record/playback tracks are each 0.180 inches (4.6mm) wide, compared to 0.04 inch (1.Omm) on a standard 24-track machine. This extra width produces output levels 10dB to 12dB hotter than possible with a 24-track headstack under identical conditions. Higher output levels translate into lower noise, wider dynamic range, and the option to record with far less tape compression effect. However, when tape compression effects are desired, Ultimate Analog may be pushed far beyond conventional limits without oversaturation or distortion.
The eight tracks occupy the same portion of the head as tracks 1-22 on a standard 24-track head, Should playback ever be required on a standard 16-or 24-track machine, each of the eight tracks fully covers at least one track on both formats.
Ultimate Analog tracks one through eight are wired to the corresponding channels of the multitrack. The separate, ninth time code track is placed in the standard "track 24" position and wired to the headblock connector pins as track 24. Since the time code track is integrated into each head, no separate time code heads are utilized and the system functions as if it were a 24-track. Installation of an Ultimate Analog headblock requires no changes to existing multitrack or studio cabling, and machine calibration is "by the book."
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Aug 6, 2020 9:10:34 GMT -6
Things seem to have gone silent on the TS500. Does anyone else have any experience with these since this thread kicked off three years ago? I don't hear much about them anywhere.
I've been interested in these for a while, but can't ever manage to pull the trigger. The concept seems fairly similar to what the RND 542 is doing, but at about half the price (or less if you build it yourself).
I like what I've heard from the 542, but it's hard for me to justify spending that much on a pair. If the TS500 does a similar thing, and sounds just as good, I might finally grab a pair of these.
I'm also interested in hearing how the controls on this work. Is the head bump and bandwidth associated with each of the three tape formulations just a simple eq added to the signal, or is there more going on behind the scenes with the pre-emphasis/de-emphasis circuit? Does the bias setting just simply remove the head bump/HF roll off eq out of the circuit, or is there more going on there as well? Maybe it's an actual de-emphasis of those frequencies, much in the same way an actual tape machine would do it?
|
|
|
Post by keymod on Aug 6, 2020 11:25:32 GMT -6
I did build a pair and have them in my rack. They definitely alter the sound in a pleasant way. I haven't had the opportunity to really get to know them yet.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Aug 6, 2020 11:28:07 GMT -6
I did build a pair and have them in my rack. They definitely alter the sound in a pleasant way. I haven't had the opportunity to really get to know them yet. Dang. You were one of the ones I was hoping would be able to provide some more insight.
|
|
|
Post by keymod on Aug 6, 2020 12:48:38 GMT -6
I did build a pair and have them in my rack. They definitely alter the sound in a pleasant way. I haven't had the opportunity to really get to know them yet. Dang. You were one of the ones I was hoping would be able to provide some more insight. I can't provide an accurate answer to your specific questions, but perhaps my engineer friend who is running my studio, can. Maybe we can run a file through them for you. I'll check with him and his schedule.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Aug 6, 2020 15:36:24 GMT -6
Dang. You were one of the ones I was hoping would be able to provide some more insight. I can't provide an accurate answer to your specific questions, but perhaps my engineer friend who is running my studio, can. Maybe we can run a file through them for you. I'll check with him and his schedule. Ok. That would be cool. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by craigmorris74 on Aug 8, 2020 21:40:22 GMT -6
I just got the Sounskulptor kit today. Hopefully build it tomorrow and put it through its paces.
|
|