Is there a field recorder that can do this?

I

ironpony

Carbonite Member
I was thinking maybe about shooting my first feature with analog tape for sound, since tape sounds better, or at least I think so. I was thinking, is there a recorder like the Nagra, but it is modern, and can transfer the data to an external harddrive after shooting, the same way as a hard disk recorder, with a USB cable? The tape would play and run the data off, through the cable, onto the external hardrive. Any modern recorders that do that? Thanks.
 
Analog tape transfers are always IN 'REAL' time and not automatic. and noise figures are nowhere as good as digital.
 
AFAIK there are no new analog tape recorders being made. In fact, I'm pretty sure there is no newly manufactured TAPE available - the last plant on the planet producing tape shut down a couple of years ago. Just what is that leads you to say "tape sounds better?"

When you transfer an analog tape to hard drive, you're digitizing it with circuits functionally identical to those found in the A/D converter in a digital recorder. Adding the analog tape step to process doesn't avoid digitization of the analog signal, you're just moving it so it comes later in the chain.
 
ironpony said:
I was thinking maybe about shooting my first feature with analog tape for sound, since tape sounds better, or at least I think so. I was thinking, is there a recorder like the Nagra, but it is modern, and can transfer the data to an external harddrive after shooting, the same way as a hard disk recorder, with a USB cable? The tape would play and run the data off, through the cable, onto the external hardrive. Any modern recorders that do that? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Tape doesn't "sound better" it distorts, it hisses, you have wow and flutter (speed variations), etc. and there a lot of "management" things you have to do - eg: head alignment, bias setting, cleaning, demagnetising, etc., etc.......

The only good one for your use is a s/h Nagra 4S - nothing better. No one makes analogue recorders anymore.

People like analogue because of the way it distorts and because it hides the deficiencies in some microphones.

Personally I would get a decent digital recorder - Nagra VI, AETA 4MinX or Sound Devices 788T - this is what the professionals use, no one records professionally on analogue tape anymore.

I stopped using analogue tape in 1983 because it was so bad and went digital then.
 
John Willett said:
Tape doesn't "sound better" it distorts, it hisses, you have wow and flutter (speed variations), etc. and there a lot of "management" things you have to do - eg: head alignment, bias setting, cleaning, demagnetising, etc., etc.......
Click to expand...
But then e-guitar players have special boxes that deliberately CREATE those various kinds of distortion. So it depends on your (or his) definition of "better". :)

Of course, since there are no more makers of analog recorders (or even parts to keep them running, because they are all mechanical monstrosities), it becomes more and more expensive and difficult to indulge this fetish. There are still sources of mag tape, but because the manufacturing has virtually disappeared, it gets more and more expensive to buy stock.

As someone who started out with analog mag tape, I can say good riddance to all those annoying artifacts. I can't believe that your typical location video production could "benefit" from those kinds of quirks. There are so many higher-order things that would contribute more benefit to the final sound track. People who weren't there don't realize how even modest modern digital recorders compare to even high-end analog mechanical equipment of the past.
 
Wow, what's with all the analog hate?

Analog has it's plusses and minuses. I kind of mis analog, but then I wasn't recording in the field with a Nagra monster either.

Of course it can sound "better". Better is not a tech spec., it's a personal opinion. You can't tell someone that they don't think something is better only that YOU don't think it's better.

That said I don't think anyone in their right mind would shoot production on 1/4" tape these days.

To OP.

If you like that sound record digitally and run the files through an analog pass. Trying to deal with reel to reel in the field is complicated.

For an analog deck to transfer out a digital cable it would have to digitize the sound. So that would make it a digital recorder. Analog is real time.

3M still does runs of tape when there are enough pre orders, so as far as I know you can still get tape, but you will have to work at it. I have some pancakes in storage if your really desperate.

Nobody is making parts (Nagra might have some?) but you can get the high end stuff serviced still. You have to find a shop that knows how to do it but Dan Dugan in SF, for one, does Nagra service.

IF you really, really want to go there I have a mono Nagra that I would sell.

But going analog will have a budget impact that is pretty significant for a small film.

Digital. You buy the box and a couple of cards then copy to a hard drive. Every thing but the recording is done at many times "real time" and you reuse the cards.

Analog. You get the box, and cleaning supplies, a demagnetizer, and if your smart a magnetometer, a large stack of tape. 7" runs about 15 min. so a four gig card is about 24 7" reels of tape @ maybe $10 - $15 each. You will need to digitize unless your cutting with razorblades, so that is another real time pass. And your going to need a harddrive to store it on.

And don't forget batteries. Your flash recorder may run on AA rechargeable but that Nagra is either going to need some hunkin external supply or 9 D cells every four or five hours.

And you are going to need someone who actually knows how to use an analog deck. That is going to probably be someone old enough to have done it before, not some unpaid helper doing it for a credit.

Analog decks need to be cleaned and demagnetized regularly. You need to tone the tapes at the heads and every 15 min or so of use you will need to change tapes.

And when your done you will have recordings with soft sync, by todays standards. So you need to keep your shots relatively short. If your shooting film (and why not if your going 1/4") then you may be able to run a sync line to the recorder. If not your depending on the crystal sync on the recorder to keep it's speed "true". Count on having some drift issues.

If your thinking you can reuse tapes after digitizing, think again. Tape stretches and you will need to get a big time tape eraser or you will get ghosts of what was recorded before. Plus it's not all that durable. In the "good old days" you transferred the 1/4" to "mag" (35mm magnetic film) and edited on that so the tapes could be stored someplace safe.

Speaking of which, you will have to do some serious security as far as magnets go. We use them all the time now since nobody is using anything that is sensitive to them. But it the "good old days" magnets were a serious concern around any tapes. There are magnets every where these days so that is going to be a BIG problem.

So if you have the budget and the time it could be a fun adventure.

Heck if you have the budget let me know I'll come on board.
 
Last edited:
I have nearly zero pro experience in film sound, but my sense of it would be "What Noiz said..." (see above). I do a lot of audio work in other areas though, and yes, there are a lot of us who still dig tape, and yes, there are machines available, and tape too! It's actually making quite a bit of a comeback. And yes, "better" is in the ear of the beholder, and a properly set-up pro analog machine running at 30 ips could have specs that rival digital, but still have all of the cool-factor of analog. A _few_ of the problems are-- this would be _super_ expensive for the average low-budget/DIY film project, based on what I've seen of the budgets people keep claiming for their audio departments (usually "zero," or, "I thought we could just turn it on and leave it?" ), the machines that actually do what you want were never designed for field use, and you'd need a small crew just to run that end of things, plus, large format reel-to-reel tape is itself expensive. So that leaves you with a smaller "portable" machine that would still probably be considered more than vintage ("antique"), with weights up to about 50 lbs., or a Nagra (still expensive), or cassette (something like a Sony Walkman Pro, which is probably not going to have the care-free magic that you might assume, with much, much slower tape-speed and track width than even a 1/4" machine, and the serious machines are 2-inch formats); and all of this with the problems/issues described in Noiz' post.

The only reasons I could see for doing it that way would be a) as an experiment or a totally "art" statement where time is _not_ money in any way, meaning you have unlimited synching and editing time and you are in no hurry whatsoever, or b) to get a certain "period" sound and feel; maybe even to match a certain look, if you were shooting on 8mm or 16mm and trying to make it look like the 70's or something (JJ Abrams-lite, anyone?). Even a brief analog clip in a more "globally digital" project would take a lot more work to get right than you are probably considering.

If you wanted to try it on-the-cheap though, there still are Sony Walkman Pros available on the used/pre-owned market (and by "cheap," I don't mean cheap, I just mean way more inexpensive than an analog multi-track), and I could hip you to some sources for Type II cassettes...

GJ
 
For those cats that dig 1/4" analog tape, I have both a Tascam and a vey nice Studer tape decks that I would be more than happy to sell you to satisfy your craving.

All the Best!

Dave
 
The only time I like the sound of analog tape better was when I was recording my drums when I was session drumming. I hit my drums hard, and I saturated the tape and moved that oxide on that tape the way I wanted it. BUT, I would then transfer that into pro tools and record everything else in pro tools. For dialogue, I don't like tape. It's not worth the hassle these days, anyway. Plus, nobody ever made a multi-track tape recorder that was more than two tracks.
 
>>>>Plus, nobody ever made a multi-track tape recorder that was more than two tracks.<<<<

???? ???? ???? ????

GJ
 
Gregg Juke said:
What year and model Studer? (smiley goes here; but seriously, what model Studer?)

GJ
Click to expand...

A-810 with over bridge in a roll-a-round cart. Bias A set for Ampex 499 Grand Master which you could really sock it to it to get that wonderful tape saturation, which they now sell as a digital plugin.
 
no one made a multi-track with more than 2 tracks? I guess I imagined the other 22 tracks on my old Studer 827 with Dolby S , sold it in time to get 15k back , now u can score them for 5k.

My fave tape was Scotch 996, had a diff warmth that Ampex didnt.
 
David,

Wow, sounds awesome. How much are you looking to get? Probably out of my price range right now, but throw-up a figure or send me an e-mail ( Gregg@MightyNoStars.com ) if you want. I think I used to work on that machine back when I was in radio.

I'm currently looking at much less (of a machine and I'm sure in price), but still a highly regarded 1/4": the Roberts/Akai 770X (tube inputs). But I'd love to know what you'd need to get for the Studer...

GJ
 
David, "no one made a multi-track with more than 2 tracks? ", not even close.

I have an eight track cassette deck with synchronizer sitting in the closet. Tascam made a whole line of four and eight track "pota-studios". Four track 1/4" was the garage band recorder of choice for many years and the work horse of theatre sound departments (have one of those also). A bunch of companies made eight track 1/2" decks and two inch 24 track decks were THE Foley recorder till fairly recently (OK twenty years ago or so). The Beatles recorded Sargent Peppers on a pair of four track machines and one of the later ones on an eight track.

If you limit to just battery powered field recorders then you are closer but some of the "porta-studios" were battery powered, or could be.
 
To address the noise etc issues a bit. In film post it wasn't sound quality that changed things it was money and time. 35mm Mag with Dolby SR sounds FANTASTIC. Has essentially no noise, no print through and lasts for??? None that has been stored properly has had issues that I know of so however long it lasts it's a lot longer than any of the digital storage systems. It doesn't stretch there is essentially no wow and flutter and it is very durable.

But it's a hundred feet a minute, about, and dubbers maxed out at 2,000 ft. It's expensive and you have to splice it to edit. To fade a cut you literally scrape off some of the coating.

It was a lot of work and a lot of money. But the quality was right up there. Actually since 16 bit 48 (or actually in some cases 44.1 - didn't matter since it all went through an analog board) with early generation converters was what pushed it out digital was a bit of a step down.

Even Nagra with Nagra Master was very close to todays digital recorders in terms of noise and "quality". Plus tape doesn't crap out in as ugly a way as digital does. It is still used by some FX recordists for gun shots and some other animal recordings.

It was done because it was a huge savings in time and money.

With todays converters and 48/24 as the standard it is back to where it was. Maybe a bit better, not a lot.
 
>>>>Plus tape doesn't crap out in as ugly a way as digital does.<<<<

Amen, brother...

>>>>To fade a cut you literally scrape off some of the coating.<<<<

Wow. Mind actually blown. Learn something new (almost) every day.

GJ

PS-- Dave F. _must_ have meant something other than what it sounded like he said, re: "no multi-tracks." I'm just looking forward to finding-out what it actually meant!
 
The music recording fraternity had this conversation years ago, and now it's generally (reluctantly) accepted that there's no point pressing even light use analogue recorders back into service, because there are lots of plug-ins that according to the experts (Hugh Robjohns being the one I always listen to) do seem able to recreate the compression and other tape artefacts quite accurately for those who want/need them. So record in digital, take advantage of the wide dynamic range and frequency response and then tweak it to colour it if you wish. Many of the plug-ins work in our audio/video editors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top