16 track reel to reel or standalone harddisk recorder

[Studio1dk]

I’m currently Recording on my Roland vs-1680 v-xpanded but would a 16 track reel to reel like the Tascam MSR16S give me a better audio quality?

[MarkOne]

Both are quite old machines, but I'd say unless you want a world of pain steer clear from the Tascam. There is a lot of nostalgia around the 'golden age of tape' but really the technology has been well and truly superseded and calibrating, maintaining and even getting media for getting the best out of what was never a pro studio machine anyway are all tasks that should be avoided.

I suspect the VS1680 converters don't compare well with today's digital interfaces, but I'd be willing to bet that they outperform the Tascam in every meaningful way.

[James Perrett]

A reel to reel won't give you objectively better audio quality if you are using the Roland in uncompressed mode. However, a good reel to reel will change the audio in ways that some people find pleasing. Transients are softened slightly and there is often a bump in the frequency response around 100Hz due to the tape head design which warms up the sound. You also have to wait for the tape to rewind before you can record a new part which changes the dynamics of a session.

If you went for a reel to reel you would also need a mixing desk and you would also need to learn how to maintain the mixing desk and tape machine - unless you are prepared to spend a fair bit of money with a maintenance technician. The Tascam uses Dolby S and Dolby S chips are notoriously unreliable. You will also need to factor in the cost of tape compared to the cost of disk drives. The last time I bought half inch tape it cost around £80 for half an hours worth of recording time but I see that it is now over £100. While you can re-use tape for a number of sessions, there is a limit to how often a tape can be reused.

If you want to avoid a computer then personally I would go for one of the modern all in one recorders from Tascam, Zoom or similar. They offer more facilities and good sound quality.

[Sam Spoons]

I owned and used a Tascam 48 ½" reel to reel and absolutely loved it at the time I progressed through Akai DR 8 and 16 digital recorders and a Mackie MDR24 (which I still have) and now use Reaper on an old Mac Pro. I still record as if I was using tape (and mix through a desk) but would I go back to tape? Heart says yes but head (and every other organ)* says a resounding no...

* If I had the room and money to spare I think I'd like a Revox B77 around somewhere, but mostly just to look at

[The Elf]

Unless you know EXACTLY what you are getting into (and by asking this question I imagine you don't), I would strongly advise you to avoid tape.

I lived through the days of tape and nothing would send me back - we managed despite using tape, not because of it.

[Arpangel]

If you use digital "as well" then this is a choice based solely on sound character. If you can afford the running costs of a reel-to-reel, and know how to line it up and maintain it, then fine, go for it, if it’s not your main recording medium, and is only used an an "effect" in terms of sound, great.
Talking about "quality" in this context isn’t the issue, the RTR is a creative filter, I buy them like I would buy any effects unit.
Again, they go wrong, and if you can’t fix them yourself, that would be the deciding factor for me.

[OneWorld]

I’m currently Recording on my Roland vs-1680 v-xpanded but would a 16 track reel to reel like the Tascam MSR16S give me a better audio quality?

By now I would assume any tape machine has a lot of miles on the clock. And like an old classic car, is more for looking at than using on a day to day basis. Magnetic tape is quite costly, can degrade, and think of all the electro-mechanical working parts, all there to wear out, and of course there is head wear to consider. Yes the tape machines are still around and many still in use, but so are old steam trains on the railway.

If you want to get as near to a reel to reel set up, but in the digital domain, you might note there's an IZ Technology RADAR 24 for sale here on SOS.

You might also note that Sam Spoons has the Mackie MDR24. I used to have the Mackie HDR24, this is the model that comes with a VGA output for connecting a computer monitor. I used the HDR24 along with the Mackie 24:8:2 analogue mixer and I really liked the setup, produced great results. But took up too much room and like many, I was seduced by more up to date alternatives, and so sold the lot as I was being offered a good price, so took it while I could.

I keep a Korg d3200, just because it is quick and easy to use. But for the main part use a computer with a control surface, though I admit, I am in the market for a digital mixing desk with recording facilities, the convenience of that setup far outweighs the perceived superiority of an old reel to reel. If you do buy an old reel to reel, make sure you have the number of a highly skilled electro-tech engineer on your phone

[Martin Walker]

I lived through the days of tape and nothing would send me back - we managed despite using tape, not because of it.

+1 to this sentiment - I used various tape machines in my early days as a musician, including a Revox, and to my ears they were always a compromise compared with the freedom and fidelity of today's digital recorders, whether one of the all in one machines or computer-based.

Running costs of analogue tape machines are also considerably higher than any digital one, and unless you buy a reasonably professional machine and can line it up well to achieve the claimed magic of tape, and have ready access to continuing supplies of tape itself, it's really not worth the effort. IMO

[Arpangel]

And like an old classic car, is more for looking at.

Oh dear,

If you want to get as near to a reel to reel set up, but in the digital domain, you might note there's an IZ Technology RADAR 24 for sale here on SOS.

Very true, I haven’t heard anything better, in the digital domain, it has a sound, for sure, but it’s a nice one, all the benefits of both worlds, and none of the disadvantages.

[Hugh Robjohns]

+1 to this sentiment - I used various tape machines in my early days as a musician, including a Revox, and to my ears they were always a compromise...

I currently reading Bill Schnee's Chairman At the Board autobiographical book in which he talks through his amazing career at the peak of the music industry through the 70s and 80s, and all the incredible artists he has worked with along the way. There is a lot of name dropping!

It's not a technical book, really, but he does continually mention the practical technical issues he has faced along the way, and two comments I've come across so far that relate to this specific thread topic:

1. On one occasion, he was overdubbing tracks and lost the left channel of the drum stem. He tracked the problem down to a dirty tape head, so cleaned it and resumed the session, only to then lose the right channel.

It turned out the batch of tape he was using was shedding oxide at a hideous rate! Although he made dub copies of the multitrack (adding a generation of tape noise to the masters) as a safety precaution, he solved the problem by hiring in a different brand of multitrack recorder which was capstan-less, and so had much gentler tape handling. That got him through to mixdown.... just!

2. The other occasion was, again, overdubbing tracks. There were two versions of the core song on the multitrack laid down at the same studio session, one after the other. The producer preferred the second version and so they subsequently overdubbed lots of additional material on to that version in different studios around the world.

During one overdub session Bill accidentally wound the tape back too far and played the first version by mistake... and he was stunned and shocked at how much brighter and crisper and more alive that take was compared to the one they'd just been working on!

The reason was that they had played over the second take so many times for all the overdubs that a lot of the oxide had been scraped off the tape (and/or there were magnetic self-erasure issues). The first take had only been played over a couple of times and was relatively pristine -- highlighting in a very practical way the inherent degradation when overdubbing on tape!

[Arpangel]

+1 to this sentiment - I used various tape machines in my early days as a musician, including a Revox, and to my ears they were always a compromise...

I currently reading Bill Schnee's Chairman At the Board autobiographical book in which he talks through his amazing career at the peak of the music industry through the 70s and 80s, and all the incredible artists he has worked with along the way. There is a lot of name dropping!

It's not a technical book, really, but he does continually mention the practical technical issues he has faced along the way, and two comments I've come across so far that relate to this specific thread topic:

1. On one occasion, he was overdubbing tracks and lost the left channel of the drum stem. He tracked the problem down to a dirty tape head, so cleaned it and resumed the session, only to then lose the right channel.

It turned out the batch of tape he was using was shedding oxide at a hideous rate! Although he made dub copies of the multitrack (adding a generation of tape noise to the masters) as a safety precaution, he solved the problem by hiring in a different brand of multitrack recorder which was capstan-less, and so had much gentler tape handling. That got him through to mixdown.... just!

2. The other occasion was, again, overdubbing tracks. There were two versions of the core song on the multitrack laid down at the same studio session, one after the other. The producer preferred the second version and so they subsequently overdubbed lots of additional material on to that version in different studios around the world.

During one overdub session Bill accidentally wound the tape back too far and played the first version by mistake... and he was stunned and shocked at how much brighter and crisper and more alive that take was compared to the one they'd just been working on!

The reason was that they had played over the second take so many times for all the overdubs that a lot of the oxide had been scraped off the tape (and/or there were magnetic self-erasure issues). The first take had only been played over a couple of times and was relatively pristine -- highlighting in a very practical way the inherent degradation when overdubbing on tape!

That’s very interesting, I never, thought about tape wear being an issue during a session, especially with new tape.

[Hugh Robjohns]

That’s very interesting, I never, thought about tape wear being an issue during a session, especially with new tape.

There speaks a man who has never worked with tape in a professional capacity! All those oldies who say they were glad to see the back of tape have very good reasons!

[Arpangel]

That’s very interesting, I never, thought about tape wear being an issue during a session, especially with new tape.

There speaks a man who has never worked with tape in a professional capacity! All those oldies who say they were glad to see the back of tape have very good reasons!

True, it’s a good job I’m into lo-fi!

[OneWorld]

Very true, I haven’t heard anything better, in the digital domain, it has a sound, for sure, but it’s a nice one, all the benefits of both worlds, and none of the disadvantages.

And there's always the TASCAM X48. When introduced they looked like the ideal to me. All the benefits of the digital domain, but operating like a reel to reel.

However they do seem a rarity and I wonder if they were not quite as appealing as they seemed to be. It would be great if these HDD Recorders such as the RADAR, X48 HDR/MDR24 and internal DSP so you could mix down to stereo in order to create a master In the Box.

I am sort of coming to the point where using various utils, using Win10, hone it to perfection, ridding it of all non-essential peripherals, get drivers etc up to date, then disconnect it from the internet and treat it (the computer) as a tape recorder and abandoning my quest to find the 'perfect' recorder

[Arpangel]

Very true, I haven’t heard anything better, in the digital domain, it has a sound, for sure, but it’s a nice one, all the benefits of both worlds, and none of the disadvantages.

And there's always the TASCAM X48. When introduced they looked like the ideal to me. All the benefits of the digital domain, but operating like a reel to reel.

However they do seem a rarity and I wonder if they were not quite as appealing as they seemed to be. It would be great if these HDD Recorders such as the RADAR, X48 HDR/MDR24 and internal DSP so you could mix down to stereo in order to create a master In the Box.

I am sort of coming to the point where using various utils, using Win10, hone it to perfection, ridding it of all non-essential peripherals, get drivers etc up to date, then disconnect it from the internet and treat it (the computer) as a tape recorder and abandoning my quest to find the 'perfect' recorder

The RADAR is good, no doubt, but I find it frustrating, you have to deal in mono files, two for each stereo track, also, compatibility can be an issue.
I’m talking about the older ones, not the latest ones.

[Studio1dk]

Mike Oldfield had a similar problem with Ommadawn. Bad tapes - and he had to rerecord the whole thing

[Arpangel]

Mike Oldfield had a similar problem with Ommadawn. Bad tapes - and he had to rerecord the whole thing

Ah! there are benefits in recording straight to stereo, no over-dubs, like I do.

[OneWorld]

Mike Oldfield had a similar problem with Ommadawn. Bad tapes - and he had to rerecord the whole thing

Ah! there are benefits in recording straight to stereo, no over-dubs, like I do.

Well if compatibility is an issue, how would you go on with reel to reel

On the subject of tape degradation. Way back in the day, we (the band) were recording some tracks and of course had to pay for the tapes if we wanted to keep them. I was offered, and bought some ex-BBC Radio1 Ampex tape, to be used for the stereo mix/master - bargain, I snapped it up

On returning to the studio, the studio own said, there's something weird going on, I did a bulk erase of the tape you gave me, before use, but listen to the results on this tune.

This tune itself was an atmospheric, moody minor key slow tune about homelessness, living on the streets etc. It featured vocals then went into a guitar solo which faded out and then an instrumental bridge before vocals came back in.

But, during the bridge, from outta nowhere came an interview between Steve Wright and a homeless person, with our instruments still playing, providing a backdrop. The most spooky bit was, the interview came in almost on cue and faded out to about a bar or so before the vocals came back in, it all actually fitted with the music - how weird was that!

OK the more cynical amongst us said, "OK studio guy, nice joke, we get it, now play the proper tape" But he assured us he had not messed with it, it would have been quite a cheeky move if he had indeed done that. So anyway, we bought new tape form the studio (some might say it was all a ploy to get us to buy tape from the studio - but nah, they wouldn't do that would they?)

So we got an example of how tape can play up and even after the erase procedure, some signal can remain, the oxide becomes 'fixed' as a magnetic imprint and can be erased?

[Drongoloid]

I’m currently Recording on my Roland vs-1680 v-xpanded but would a 16 track reel to reel like the Tascam MSR16S give me a better audio quality?

An analogy. I have owned a VW Up for 30 months. I have never raised the bonnet and don't even know where the lever is. My first car was a Ford Anglia and the bonnet was never down. Pictures of me with the Anglia bring a certain something to my soul but that's probably because I am 17 and not...er...much older.

[MarkOne]

So we got an example of how tape can play up and even after the erase procedure, some signal can remain, the oxide becomes 'fixed' as a magnetic imprint and can be erased?

Way back in the last millennium (actually way back!) I got a job at the UKs (then) largest avionics company in a division that specialised in recording systems for the avionics industry.

They decided to send a bunch of us to a summer school at Cranfield run by a visiting professor from one of the US colleges (really don't remember which) who had a lot of experience consulting for the US DOD.

At one point he was asked by someone in a federal three letter organisation if it was possible to retrieve the erased information on the Watergate tapes. He said it was, but it never got progressed due to pressure from above

[James Perrett]

So we got an example of how tape can play up and even after the erase procedure, some signal can remain, the oxide becomes 'fixed' as a magnetic imprint and can be erased?

Or the Ampex tape was living up to its reputation and shed some crud on the erase head just at the right moment?

[Arpangel]

Well if compatibility is an issue, how would you go on with reel to reel

Back then, tape machines were common place, they might not have been ideal, but you could always play something back.
Digital systems, are majorly incompatible sometimes, the early ones, and RADAR too.
A forum member, the Red Bladder, changed over recently, to a more modern system, for this very reason.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Back then, tape machines were common place, they might not have been ideal, but you could always play something back.

Well... if we're talking 1970s then yes, broadly... although there were still issues of different tape speeds, rec/rep EQ, noise reduction type and alignment, fluxivity level, head formats (track and guard band dimensions), and so on.

But going back to the 'early days' of reel-reel machines there were huge incompatibilities. Some machines ran right to left instead of left to right. Some required oxide on the outside instead of the inside of the tape reel. Some didn't use flanged reels at all and others couldn't take European pancake reels... and thats on top of the speed/ eq/ fluxivity/ head format differences, and so on! It took over a couple of decades for a state of semi-universal consistency and compatibility to emerge.

Digital systems, are majorly incompatible sometimes, the early ones, and RADAR too.

Its true there were some proprietary disk formats early on, and a few bespoke interconnection configurations too, but i think the industry arrived at a state of digital semi-universal compatibility remarkably quickly.

[James Perrett]

Digital systems, are majorly incompatible sometimes, the early ones, and RADAR too.

Its true there were some proprietary disk formats early on, and a few bespoke interconnection configurations too, but i think the industry arrived at a state of digital semi-universal compatibility remarkably quickly.

After doing a little bit of reading into the background of one of the transfer jobs I'm doing this week, I have a horrible feeling that this client is going to be asking me if I can transfer 3M digital tapes sometime over the next few months. I'm just hoping that they made analogue backups of those sessions too.