Topic: Analog Reconsidered

[runonce]

I've been doing some experiments with analog lately. (Probably experiments that I should have done 3 decades ago.)
I've been buying every blank cassette I can get my hands on and recently picked up a nice Yamaha Natural Sound cassette deck.
At the same time - I've had some transfer projects that forced me to find a few working reel to reel decks as well.

I only record local bands, where I have access to AC, Board Feeds, Stage, occasionally even drafted into mixing as well.
Recording Digital - is generally set it, and forget it, so its not hard to tend to another deck.

The Experiments - these are posted with companion digital passages. Streaming links as well as mp3 downs.

The first experiment was with reel to reel. I ran a 1969 AKAI X1800-SD reel to reel with some AMPEX 651 tape.

Comparison 1 here [mu3 stream]  mp3 dl [sample 1] [sample 2]

The second, I ran a Yamaha Natural Sound Cassette deck - with a TDK D-90 (Type I) with Dolby C. I hammered the levels for this source, LEDs touching +12 at times.
I never would have driven a cassette deck this hard back in the day. This one blows me away how good it came out.

Comparison 2 here (warning: Country Music alert!) m3u stream [Source comp 2] mp3 dl [source 1] [source 2]

I dont think it's that hard to spot the digital source - but, the analog recordings came out far, far better than I expected.

I'll hold off on the reveal as to which is which.

Conclusions

I've long suspected that - back in the Grateful Dead days - We probably should have been running normal tapes with Dolby ON - and hammered the levels.
Towards the end of my analog days (Sony D5) I used a few Maxell XLIS tapes - these are the normal bias ones. And, I was surprised they sounded so darn good.
Those normal bias tapes can produce a nice soft compression, and give the recording a bit fuller sound and more "drive."
With practice - I think you could really use this to one's advantage. I dont think Type II tapes are as forgiving with high levels. They just have inherently lower noise, and perhaps better frequency response.
I tend to believe that a lot of us under-recorded. Sometimes analog aud recordings have too much "treble-air" that mixes in with the noise too much - and sounds smeary.

Its also astonishing how good the reel to reel source sounds - for a machine made in 1969...running used/abused tape.
A more modern 1980s deck with dbx would probably require the golden ears to really pick out.

Enter Digital

Today I can see a new role for analog - you can master live analogs, and immediately remaster to digital. You dont have to be concerned about tape alignment (well, unless you drop the deck on the way out the door) - or other issues one encounters when transferring old analogs. You really couldnt do this in the DAT days - too expensive. And I never cared for standalone CD burners. Now its cheap and easy to make a digital re-master to preserve the recording. Studios did this for years in the early digital days. (master analog, mix digital) Perhaps some still do.

What does it mean?

Not much I guess - but If I were a guy who wanted to get into live recording - I would get going and dont wait around for a digital recorder. Grab Dad's old cassette deck and go!!!
I acknowledge that this is slightly impractical and esoteric, but damn interesting nonetheless.
I think sometimes we think there have been these huge strides in audio fidelity, and back in the 70s and 80s we all used tin cans and dixie cups...but - it seems we've had good sound for a long time.
I still probably wouldn't want to use analog record a un-amped acoustic session - but for amped music, where you can stay ahead of the noise - its fine.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

Cool project!  I've been wanting to drag a cassette to a gig for years and try this.

[darby]

both sources were recorded with AKG 451/ck1s... same stand and configuration
one into Whirlwind 18V phantoms > Teac DA-P20 (DAT @16/48)
the other into AKG 18V phantoms > Sony TC-D5M (metal cassette no Dolby transferred @ 24/48)

http://archive.org/details/gd1994-07-26.AKG451.Darby.119445.Flac1648

http://archive.org/details/gd1994-07-26.AKG451.Darbys2nd.120292.Flac2448

http://archive.org/details/gd1994-07-27.AKG451.Darby.119473.Flac1648

http://archive.org/details/gd1994-07-27.AKG451.Darbys2nd.120300.Flac2448

I prefer the cassette masters transferred @ 24/48 

[page]

Those normal bias tapes can produce a nice soft compression, and give the recording a bit fuller sound and more "drive."
With practice - I think you could really use this to one's advantage.

Yep, that's the entire point of the saturation/coloration VST makers; replicate the effects (good and bad) of tape, especially that light compression and harmonic distortion.

Now its cheap and easy to make a digital re-master to preserve the recording. Studios did this for years in the early digital days. (master analog, mix digital) Perhaps some still do.

Yeah, I can think of some smaller shops that still do regularly (some out of necessity, others out of choice), and I suspect that the bigger ones retain the capability even if they don't use it often.

[runonce]

Those normal bias tapes can produce a nice soft compression, and give the recording a bit fuller sound and more "drive."
With practice - I think you could really use this to one's advantage.

Yep, that's the entire point of the saturation/coloration VST makers; replicate the effects (good and bad) of tape, especially that light compression and harmonic distortion.

Now its cheap and easy to make a digital re-master to preserve the recording. Studios did this for years in the early digital days. (master analog, mix digital) Perhaps some still do.

Yeah, I can think of some smaller shops that still do regularly (some out of necessity, others out of choice), and I suspect that the bigger ones retain the capability even if they don't use it often.

Thanks page.

For the record - Im not trying pretend I've discovered anything new or unknown - just something that I didnt practice at the time - and something that makes a lot more sense in light of the past 8-10 years of digital/hard disk recording and having access to DAW, etc...

[runonce]

both sources were recorded with AKG 451/ck1s... same stand and configuration
one into Whirlwind 18V phantoms > Teac DA-P20 (DAT @16/48)
the other into AKG 18V phantoms > Sony TC-D5M (metal cassette no Dolby transferred @ 24/48)

http://archive.org/details/gd1994-07-26.AKG451.Darby.119445.Flac1648

http://archive.org/details/gd1994-07-26.AKG451.Darbys2nd.120292.Flac2448

http://archive.org/details/gd1994-07-27.AKG451.Darby.119473.Flac1648

http://archive.org/details/gd1994-07-27.AKG451.Darbys2nd.120300.Flac2448

I prefer the cassette masters transferred @ 24/48 

Thanks Darby - Dl'ing a few comp tracks...

And thanks for all the etree seeds - you seem to have recorded a lot during the crossover from analog > digital.

[Gutbucket]

Cool thread.. making to come back and listen.

[page]

For the record - Im not trying pretend I've discovered anything new or unknown - just something that I didnt practice at the time - and something that makes a lot more sense in light of the past 8-10 years of digital/hard disk recording and having access to DAW, etc...

yeah, me too. I didn't get it at first until I started playing around with it. I baught a tube amp for playback once just to see how it altered stuff so I could get an idea of when I'd want that sound versus when I wouldn't.

 

[Popmarter]

Very nice project! Would love to see some real field test.

What about some 48v powered mics into a mix-pre-d, recording into a Sony D3... 

[darby]

Thanks Darby - Dl'ing a few comp tracks...

And thanks for all the etree seeds - you seem to have recorded a lot during the crossover from analog > digital.

I held out until 93 going to DAT since the D5 was so simple to operate, that's when I finally felt comfortable with external batteries for the DA-P20

[Scooter123]

Skip the tape, and go right to vinyl. Old School

[Gutbucket]

^^^
Build that into the bottom of your wheelchair!

[Gutbucket]

The first experiment was with reel to reel. I ran a 1969 AKAI X1800-SD reel to reel with some AMPEX 651 tape.

That sounds amazinlgy good.

[JasonSobel]

both sources were recorded with AKG 451/ck1s... same stand and configuration
one into Whirlwind 18V phantoms > Teac DA-P20 (DAT @16/48)
the other into AKG 18V phantoms > Sony TC-D5M (metal cassette no Dolby transferred @ 24/48)

http://archive.org/details/gd1994-07-26.AKG451.Darby.119445.Flac1648

http://archive.org/details/gd1994-07-26.AKG451.Darbys2nd.120292.Flac2448

http://archive.org/details/gd1994-07-27.AKG451.Darby.119473.Flac1648

http://archive.org/details/gd1994-07-27.AKG451.Darbys2nd.120300.Flac2448

I prefer the cassette masters transferred @ 24/48 

Thanks Darby - Dl'ing a few comp tracks...

And thanks for all the etree seeds - you seem to have recorded a lot during the crossover from analog > digital.

not necessarily the best comparison, as the DAT's recorded on the Teac DA-P20 were recorded with pre-emphasis, and it looks like it was never removed.  Run the DA-P20 tapes through a de-emphasis EQ and then compare to the analog tape recordings, and you'll have a better comp.

[runonce]

both sources were recorded with AKG 451/ck1s... same stand and configuration
one into Whirlwind 18V phantoms > Teac DA-P20 (DAT @16/48)
the other into AKG 18V phantoms > Sony TC-D5M (metal cassette no Dolby transferred @ 24/48)

http://archive.org/details/gd1994-07-26.AKG451.Darby.119445.Flac1648

http://archive.org/details/gd1994-07-26.AKG451.Darbys2nd.120292.Flac2448

http://archive.org/details/gd1994-07-27.AKG451.Darby.119473.Flac1648

http://archive.org/details/gd1994-07-27.AKG451.Darbys2nd.120300.Flac2448

I prefer the cassette masters transferred @ 24/48 

Thanks Darby - Dl'ing a few comp tracks...

And thanks for all the etree seeds - you seem to have recorded a lot during the crossover from analog > digital.

not necessarily the best comparison, as the DAT's recorded on the Teac DA-P20 were recorded with pre-emphasis, and it looks like it was never removed.  Run the DA-P20 tapes through a de-emphasis EQ and then compare to the analog tape recordings, and you'll have a better comp.

That^ - and werent those DA-P20 mic pres a little iffy at higher SPLs?

[jethro bo deen]

It is almost impossible to source Quality NEW Cassette tape these days.
NAC (national audio company) in Missouri USA is the only place that I'm aware of
that is still assembling quality Type II (high bias) tapes that are outstanding.
The 747 Cobalt  and The 751 Chrome are  on par with old Sony/Maxell/TDK high bias.
Maybe not as good as the best of those from the eighties, but certainly close. 
The  Maxell XLII & TDK SA of the past decade or twelve years or so were junk in
comparison to  eighties & early nineties TDK & MAXELL.      Sony still had quality
tape products.    Now in 2012,  NOBODY IS PRODUCING TYPE II tape, outside of NAC
which probably has  a huge amount of tape product on hand to load into shells which
was still produced when Tape factories were producing Type II stock.

I suggest that those interested in old school TAPE,  r2r , Cassette that they may
want to visit http://www.tapeheads.net/forums.php
There are a huge number of ANALOG fans there.    Some of those there are
retired engineers who once worked for the large firms building/designing Tapes & Decks.
There are others who  are  experts at  rebuilding and recalibrating and re-belting old tape
decks so that they operate as they should.
Old equipment that is  off its game, will never perform = to what it would have in the eighties/seventies
when it was functioning properly.
My suggestion is if you have a functioning deck is that you should seek all of the USED quality TDK, SONY, MAXELL
type II tapes produced when the quality was superb.       Ditto for Maxell r2r tapes circa  1978-1984.
Those machines aren't any good if you don't have decent tape to play around with.
NOS  tapes can get Pricey$!
There are plenty of them out there still.
Tape decks can make wonderful recordings if you know what you are doing  and the deck functions properly.
I had an Akai  X-200D  purchased in '71  that was a basic r2r  that made good tapes for the twenty-five years
that I used it.    Many of the later day r2r decks were far superior, but that Akai was still a good performer.
Cassette decks of the eighties,  especially the TECHNICS dbx and YAMAHA dbx  noise reduction decks were
the best ones ever produced.    dbx was never popular because it never appeared in car stereos/boomboxes but
it gave  S/N ratio unequalled by any other analog tape.    s/n range of 92 to 95 ,  very close to modern digital stuff.
Dolby S,  Dolby C, and Dolby B  never came close.
The  dbx noise reduction used on latter day high end r2r machines  was different than the cassette version but it
made those early eighties R2R machines so equipped  the most sought after,  to this day.    Huge improvement in
s/n ratio which on most old r2r decks was not that good  approx 65 for most without noise reduction,  though they
have wide frequency ranges to 25k,   hiss is still a factor when rec levels drop.

[bryonsos]

Cassette decks of the eighties,  especially the TECHNICS dbx and YAMAHA dbx  noise reduction decks were
the best ones ever produced.    dbx was never popular because it never appeared in car stereos/boomboxes but
it gave  S/N ratio unequalled by any other analog tape.    s/n range of 92 to 95 ,  very close to modern digital stuff.
Dolby S,  Dolby C, and Dolby B  never came close.
The  dbx noise reduction used on latter day high end r2r machines  was different than the cassette version but it
made those early eighties R2R machines so equipped  the most sought after,  to this day.    Huge improvement in
s/n ratio which on most old r2r decks was not that good  approx 65 for most without noise reduction,  though they
have wide frequency ranges to 25k,   hiss is still a factor when rec levels drop.

The first tape I made with my PMD430, I did the first set with Dolby B and the second set with dbx. I used dbx only from that point forward. I'll see if I can dig that one up...

[darby]

both sources were recorded with AKG 451/ck1s... same stand and configuration
one into Whirlwind 18V phantoms > Teac DA-P20 (DAT @16/48)
the other into AKG 18V phantoms > Sony TC-D5M (metal cassette no Dolby transferred @ 24/48)

http://archive.org/details/gd1994-07-26.AKG451.Darby.119445.Flac1648

http://archive.org/details/gd1994-07-26.AKG451.Darbys2nd.120292.Flac2448

http://archive.org/details/gd1994-07-27.AKG451.Darby.119473.Flac1648

http://archive.org/details/gd1994-07-27.AKG451.Darbys2nd.120300.Flac2448

I prefer the cassette masters transferred @ 24/48 

Thanks Darby - Dl'ing a few comp tracks...

And thanks for all the etree seeds - you seem to have recorded a lot during the crossover from analog > digital.

not necessarily the best comparison, as the DAT's recorded on the Teac DA-P20 were recorded with pre-emphasis, and it looks like it was never removed.  Run the DA-P20 tapes through a de-emphasis EQ and then compare to the analog tape recordings, and you'll have a better comp.

thanks  Jason, for your work on my phish shows   

what I noticed most on my cassette masters was a sense of space, not just music

[DSatz]

Please don't idealize dbx noise reduction. It depends on a very well-set-up, well-maintained tape deck, first-quality tape of the exact kind that the deck was set up for, and levels that have been set in the optimal zone for the tape, the deck and the given program material. Otherwise the noise reduction system will tend to exaggerate any unevenness in frequency response in the deck (including lost highs after the tapes have been in storage for a while, or saturation from overload at high frequencies--which was especially a problem with cassettes and even more so when people tried to use "analog tape squash" as an effect ...).

With dbx you can hear (or at least, many people including myself can hear, and I find it almost incredible when others said they couldn't hear it) noise that varies in level along with the program material--which for anyone who is at all aware of it, is audibly MUCH more distracting than a low level of steady hiss.

I tried to use the professional dbx system (retrospectively called "dbx I") with my Nagra tape recorder in the 1970s and while it was amazing when it worked well, it also produced some tapes that were unusable due to the above problems. I remember recording a wonderful Dutch recorder player named Marion Verbruggen--due to modulation noise in playback, the tape sounded as if firecrackers were going off whenever she hit a high note. I wish I still had that tape; I'd post some samples here as a cautionary tale of woe.

Multi-band systems with a less severe (i.e. less than 2:1) compression ratio, such as Telefunken's "c4" system or anything from Dolby Labs, were safer, much more real-world-practical designs. dbx was designed on the assumption of having an ideal tape recorder and ideal tape between the encoder and the decoder. The only place where it really worked well was when they came out with an alternative digital recording system (one whose results, unfortunately, could not be edited--they simply didn't deal with that necessity when they designed the system ... ).

--best regards

[bryonsos]

Believe me, I wasn't idealizing dbx, merely sharing my experience with it. It was actually a PITA since it never sounded right unless you did playback on the same deck it was recorded on. I used Dolby or nothing for 1st gens, and then moth balled the masters. You can hear an example of how clear and hissless dbx can be on the 1992-03-28 bonus disk Phish released with their Atlanta box set. This was Nakamichi CM300/CP1 (XY, FOB) > Marantz PMD430 (dbx on, Maxcell MX-S metal tape). When I talked to Kevin before they released it, he indicated that the remastering involved level adjustment and "mild" EQ, but didn't mention dehissing. He was working off of a 1st gen that may or may not have employed Dolby, I can't remember. Regardless, I pulled the tape out after I talked to him and even after 15+ years of storage, it sounded brand new. If DSatz is on the mark about levels, tape type etc., I got lucky with my choices 

[mfrench]

Skip the tape, and go right to vinyl. Old School

^^^
Build that into the bottom of your wheelchair!

thats a home unit.
This is portable:

[Gutbucket]

Nice.  Tweed too.  Wonder if it originally shipped with a white lab coat and bow tie.

Appears that while cutting the operator could monitor directly off disk with the playback arms, analogous to monitoring off the tape on a 3 head deck.

Despite similarity of layout that ain't no scratchin' DJ rig.

[mfrench]

That rig, a Presto Recording Corp. Model M Dual Turntable Recorder, sold in the later 40's for $599ºº
per this catalog image:
http://www.auctiva.com/hostedimages/showimage.aspx?gid=161841&ppid=1122&image=587249224&images=587248883,587249125,587249161,587249195,587249224,587249259,587249028&formats=0,0,0,0,0,0,0&format=0

catalog compiled here:
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v729/MokePics2/Presto%2015G2%201953%20Idler%20Turntable/Presto_Recording_Corp_1940s_Catalog/

[Gutbucket]

Wow, imagine what works out to in inflation adjusted dollars per channel/minute of recording time including media, compared to a what must be the current low cost dollar per channel/minute recording champ of today, the DR-680 with 8 channels for ~$700.  The Tascam doesn't come in tweed or include the labcoat though.  And probably won't be nearly as cool when it's 60 years old.

[DSatz]

Mr. Bucket, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, $599 in the year 1948 was equvalent in purchasing power to $5,712 in 2012. I wonder how many of those turntable sets were ever sold at such a price. And thank you for raising this question, since the failure to take inflation into account is routine in discussions of the value of "vintage" sound equipment, distorting the outcome.

There used to be only a handful of professional audio manufacturers, dealers and distributors; it was a sellers' market. But now we live in an age of much steeper price competition. With inflation taken into account, new professional audio equipment generally costs distinctly less than comparable equipment from decades ago.

A corollary is that very few "vintage" items hold much of their original value. Exceptions to this are signficant but few in number--a handful of items that are quite scarce in unmodified, good working condition, such as the Neumann U 47 or the AKG C 12 or the "Telefunken" M 251 E--and notably, they all have major components for which no direct replacements are available any more. So for those models, it's once again a sellers' market.

--best regards

[Walstib62]

What about Dolby SR? Awesome system, but really only usable in studio or pro location setups.

[DSatz]

Dolby SR is/was a professional system. It is audibly transparent when set up correctly and used with professional-quality analog recorders. It's about twice as powerful as Dolby A. It gives somewhat less overall noise reduction effect than telcom c4 or dbx, but it can give a good 15 ips stereo 1/4" tape recorder a dynamic range in the area of 90 dB or even a touch more--quite similar to 16-bit linear PCM, which was the goal at the time.

"All other things being equal" (as they say) you really don't want a noise reduction system to be any more powerful than necessary, because to paraphrase a great philosopher, "with great power comes great" ... risk of audible side effects such as mistracking, frequency response errors and/or noise levels that ride up and down with the program material.

The consumer counterpart of Dolby SR was a system called Dolby S, which was never very widely used. That's partly because it was introduced so late in the game w/r/t when the whole audio world went digital. It was also for high-end decks only; Dolby licensed it for specific cassette decks that met their standards of performance, and that had the user-accessible adjustments necessary to calibrate the deck to the particular cassette being recorded.

By the way, the SR system works against "analog tape squash" in that (when recording) it reduces the highest frequencies at high signal levels and (in playback) restores them, so that saturation is less likely to occur. If you want to use analog tape as a sound processing device rather than as a transparent medium, don't use Dolby S or SR, either dbx system, telcom c4, or Telefunken's "Hi-Com" consumer system. Also avoid Dolby HX even though it's not a noise-reduction system as such. Either use systems such as Dolby B or C that don't offer any saturation protection, or don't use noise reduction at all.

[jethro bo deen]

Obviously,  I don't know one one millionth of what DSatz  knows on the specifics of the different noise reduction systems and their limitations,   but   I seem to recall that  Dolby requires one to get the levels more specifically calibrated for it to function best.
(Meaning that Dolby is much more level dependent )
I might be incorrect.
Perhaps  DSatz might care to explain the details.
Some have greater compatibility issues if played back on different machines as well.     Dolby B is said to be more compatible between differing Dolby B  decks,    and  Dolby C seems to have greater differences between decks.   
Dolby ( B, C, S)    on  cassette decks in particular  has no less limitations/issues  than for dbx noise reduction.   Decks have to function to specs.      One can argue that REC LEVELS with dbx  need not be as perfectly set(calibrated)  as if one was recording using Dolby .
No noise reduction system  is  entirely perfect and factors like the tape and its match for the deck set up and bias and where the recording levels go during the recording.
Noise reduction does improve things if things are close to how they ought to be.   The greater S/N ratio provided by dbx far exceeds anything Dolby B, C, or S  could do  in the cassette format.     A huge difference in Quality if things are working right and you are using good tape that is perfectly matched for the deck.
Cassette without  any noise reduction  is  not  the  greatest quality  as compared to r2r without noise reduction at 3 3/4.
Some prefer the noise of not using Noise reduction  on cassette versus the things that the various noise reduction schemes can bring in to the sound if things are not close to perfect.   

[runonce]

Obviously,  I don't know one one millionth of what DSatz  knows on the specifics of the different noise reduction systems and their limitations,   but   I seem to recall that  Dolby requires one to get the levels more specifically calibrated for it to function best.
(Meaning that Dolby is much more level dependent )
I might be incorrect.
Perhaps  DSatz might care to explain the details.
Some have greater compatibility issues if played back on different machines as well.     Dolby B is said to be more compatible between differing Dolby B  decks,    and  Dolby C seems to have greater differences between decks.   
Dolby ( B, C, S)    on  cassette decks in particular  has no less limitations/issues  than for dbx noise reduction.   Decks have to function to specs.      One can argue that REC LEVELS with dbx  need not be as perfectly set(calibrated)  as if one was recording using Dolby .
No noise reduction system  is  entirely perfect and factors like the tape and its match for the deck set up and bias and where the recording levels go during the recording.
Noise reduction does improve things if things are close to how they ought to be.   The greater S/N ratio provided by dbx far exceeds anything Dolby B, C, or S  could do  in the cassette format.     A huge difference in Quality if things are working right and you are using good tape that is perfectly matched for the deck.
Cassette without  any noise reduction  is  not  the  greatest quality  as compared to r2r without noise reduction at 3 3/4.
Some prefer the noise of not using Noise reduction  on cassette versus the things that the various noise reduction schemes can bring in to the sound if things are not close to perfect.   

The points about interoperability are probably true - but at this point in the game - Im looking at analog as a "master > remaster" medium - and not as an everyday playback media.
First pass, record - second pass playback/transfer to digital - done. Erase the tape and reuse it. No need to worry about tracking/alignment, or compatibility as you'll be using the same deck to master and playback.

For those who took the plunge - in both examples in the original post, the analog version is the second sample.

[andromedanwarmachine]

I've still got analog gear;

Two Sony Pro WM D6-C which both need repaired
A Fostex R8 which needs repaired

and my trusty Nakamichi DR3 which occupies music-system rack space in my house and still sees use- the only one that doesn't need repaired!!

I play quite alot of cassette stuff in the car actually- alot of my taste; 80s/90s electro sound much, much better off cassette. To me ears...

JimP

[intpseeker]

both sources were recorded with AKG 451/ck1s... same stand and configuration
one into Whirlwind 18V phantoms > Teac DA-P20 (DAT @16/48)
the other into AKG 18V phantoms > Sony TC-D5M (metal cassette no Dolby transferred @ 24/48)

http://archive.org/details/gd1994-07-26.AKG451.Darby.119445.Flac1648

http://archive.org/details/gd1994-07-26.AKG451.Darbys2nd.120292.Flac2448

http://archive.org/details/gd1994-07-27.AKG451.Darby.119473.Flac1648

http://archive.org/details/gd1994-07-27.AKG451.Darbys2nd.120300.Flac2448

I prefer the cassette masters transferred @ 24/48 

Thanks, Mike. Sitting here blasting Queen Jane, amazed by the quality of your pull and the gift it is to be able to hear Jerry better than if I was there.

[Captain Bringdown]

Still love analog I remember slamming the levels of my d5. Still got it and like 300 or so new maxells from the early/mid 90's

[axomxa]

I have a nak bx300 home deck and started out in the field taping GD back in 83.  Used to have all of the Sony analog portbales and have been contemplating picking up a Nak550 to use in the field retro style.  Might pull the trigger to mess around at festies this summer as there are several 550's on ebay in full working order;)

[acidjack]

is there any analog gear going for actual "mess around" type prices these days?  I've thought about it, for sure..

[bryonsos]

is there any analog gear going for actual "mess around" type prices these days?  I've thought about it, for sure..

I was curious too:

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trksid=p5197.m570.l1311.R1.TR2.TRC1&_nkw=marantz+pmd+430&_sacat=0&_from=R40

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=Sony+d5&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0&_nkw=Sony++tc-d5&_sacat=0

[acidjack]

^^ That's about what I remembered from the last time I looked.... if you want one that works, they cost more than a digital unit, generally. 

That said, I'm sure they can be had from random yard sales (or the TS.com YS) for less, here and there.

[runonce]

I got all my reel decks at estate sales, flea markets or yard sales.

You can get them cheap - dont think I paid more than 10 bucks for any of my AKAIs (I have 3 M-9s and a X1000SD)

Generally all of these machines require some tinkering, cleaning, lubrication before use. (assuming they just came out of grampas garage)

Motor run capacitor problems seem somewhat common in gear this old - but some still hold speed well.

And remember there are 1/2 and 1/4 track machines - and they aren't compatible. (just in case you have an old box of tapes you want to play)

Once you're in - AudioKarma has a lot of valuable info.

I think we sometimes think people didn't have "good sound" back in this era, but as it turns out - they had sound that was pretty darn good.

Mostly - I got into this because I had boxes of family tapes as well as other boxes I had procured from local old-timers that I wanted to play and transfer...but after a while I got curious about recording.

[axomxa]

is there any analog gear going for actual "mess around" type prices these days?  I've thought about it, for sure..

Could'nt resist all this analog talk  Pulled the trigger this morning on a pristine fully functioning Nak 550 with all the orignal accessories (with an accepted offer $75.00 below the BIN   

Should have it by Thursday and if so I plan to pull the Black Crowes at HOB with it (along side the 680 of course). Guess I'll be using the big bag!!  Ahhh I can feel the adrenaline rush of timing the tape flip just right already   

[DiggerinVA]

Well I just checked my TC-D5M in for service. The take up reel is too weak to pull the tape. The dude looked excited to work on it, asked if I was in a hurry. Which I am not. You could see those gears turning.
If it is done by Furthur in AC I may take it out for the old AB, RCA out form the V2 to the D-5 and XLR into the PMD661. Could be interesting.

[Chuck]

A huge reason DAT was adopted so quickly with the Grateful Dead taper crowd was no tape flips every ~45 minutes. Especially when recording the Grateful Dead you knew you were going to miss some music at the flip.

[DiggerinVA]

A huge reason DAT was adopted so quickly with the Grateful Dead taper crowd was no tape flips every ~45 minutes. Especially when recording the Grateful Dead you knew you were going to miss some music at the flip.

That is why I spent the bucks and went pro for the better pre's.

[bombdiggity]

Maybe somewhat OT but what got me back into this after a "retirement" of sorts was just picking up whatever I had at hand that I knew still worked on the way to a spur of the moment show a few years ago, which turned out to be a Sony MS-907 (which wasn't even my B or C mic back in the day), my trusty old 1980's purchased D-6, and an XL-II.  Still the best sounding recording I've made in that venue after several more tries with digital recorders and other much better mics...   The soundman had something to do with it that night I'm sure (it sounded great to the ear), but it's not the gear in absolute terms as much as how appropriate it is in that spot on that night and how well you use what you have.  If it was all I still had I'd still run it now if I were at anything.  I can't quite bring myself to sell that or the DATs or...   Though if I could turn all that retro gear into another set of caps...  hmm... 

Oh and it is a slippery slope...