The Steel Guitar Forum

Vintage bluegrass groups can be very illustrative about balancing everything on a single mic. Obviously, the dynamics of an all-acoustic ensemble is different that a group with electric instruments and amplifiers. Watch Flatt & Scruggs, Bill Monroe & the Bluegrass Boys (even Hot Rize a generation later) and other classic groups trade vocals, blend harmony and take instrumental breaks, keeping all voices and instruments at the proper levels. Accomplishing the desired sonic results also involves some amazing choreography as the players swoop in out, back and around--mostly without colliding. Self-mixing on the fly. Almost literally.

It should be pointed out that, once you've retired, your budget goes right down. A lot of us old geezers are still using old equipment because we can't afford new equipment.

Ever since my Beta HiFi bit the dust, I've been using a Roland VS Studio: recording like the 1990s.

Call these guys....

http://histylerecords.com/studio

If I was attempting this - and assuming it was intended to be more than just a low run demo - I would contact Deke Dickerson. Either book it with him in LA or get his advice. I would imagine pulling old recording equip out of storage, while cool, would be a massive headache.

I will say the old tascam R-R 4 trak recorders can still be found cheap and are excellent. I would still dump that into DAW for final editing. Like others have said - unless you are proficient with splicing, you'll end up with a mess.

Remember, most of those cats pulling off live cuts were seasoned bands that played 4+ hour dances 6 days a week.

Jerome Hawkes wrote:...I will say the old Tascam R-R 4 trak recorders can still be found cheap and are excellent...

If you're going to go the way of Tascam reel-to-reel, then get yourself the 8 channel version with built in mixer, which was the prototype of the casette-based Portastudios which became so popular later in the 1980s. I have two of them. They're built like tanks.

Here are the 4-channel machines which Jerome was talking about. Great machines, too. Again, I have two of them.
Whichever way you go, if you decide to use old reel-to-reel recorders don't be tempted to use old tape. New tape is still available, though not as cheap as it used to be.

The opry I used to work at here at the lake has a killer old school studio including 2 inch format...hmmmmmmmmmmm

Have you seen the price of 2" tape lately ?

Hey if you want the sound.....LOL Actually you can get real close with some tube pre amps in a DAW.....cleaner too...

Of course, in 1950 most of this equipment didn't exist. You might need to record direct onto lacquer 78s. Wire recorders weren't good enough for music, and tape recorders were only just starting to become available. You could record optically onto 35mm movie film, but only movie studios could do that sort of thing.

Many of the old recording equipment pieces really did not do a hole lot in making the sound any better. Technology back then was not as good as it is today. Back in the 50' and 60' and earlier tubes rained as king. Slowly over time transistors took over and now it seems many people are going back to tubes. Myself I would not fiddle with the old stuff as it is old and unreliable and needs expensive maintenance all the time. There is many manufactures who are building the old school sound but with way better modern pieces to build from. I own a mostly tube recording studio and would never ever thing of spending my hard earned cash on old unreliable gear for recording. The new equipment is built with better components will last longer and actually sound better than the old worn out equipment. Yes if you have many many thousands of dollars to spend on old revamped equipment.

If you are thinking of recording to tape I think spend a lot of time researching on what you need and what you do not need. The actual best speed to record on is 30 IPS not 15 as indicated in another post. At 15 yes you get a nice sound but the industry standard speed is 30 IPS. If you are looking to record in a recording studio inviroment do not buy a home recorder. You want your Reel To reel to use XLRr plug's for line in and out. When a machine uses XLR inputs and out puts it usually indicates it is leaning more to a professional piece of gear. Remember 2 tracks records 2 instruments at one time or two mics at one time.. Same for 4 Track and an 8 track. Do not get confused with tape inches as far as width. People talk about 2 inch wide tapes. The width is only because they are using 16 to 24 tracks and need more tape width. I record to tape in my studio and have a complete analog signal chain recording to tape. I also have a digital chain then it converts to tape also.. I use an 8 track and a 4 track..

I am reposting again because what the last poster said.(The "old sound" is mainly in the studio arrangement, simple micing and minimal mixing. What it is recorded on doesn't matter much.) For me my experience it matters very much what I record on...If you just want a recording, record it to anything...If you want quality sound, record it to tape. Most of all the big hits today in any type of music are first recorded to tape then down graded to digital, yes I did say down graded to digital. The minimal approach works best but cannot disreguard what you use to record it with , what kind of mic you are using , mic placement, and then where is it recorded on. Myself I tend to want to be able to listen to what I have recorded and how well it actually sounds.or can sound with the proper equipment.Top quality or good recordings just do not sound good because of (lets keep it at a minimal approach.)

I don't know if anyone's interested in recording in Los Angeles, but Aspen Pittman has been creating a recording studio geared for live band recording through an all-tube system. You can read about it here: http://aspenandassoc.com/recording.php and see the gear list that comes with the daily rate here: http://aspenandassoc.com/gearlist.php It's pretty intense!

Here is the deal with the old time equipment.

1. Unless your gap width is 1/8 " per track ie 16 track on 2 inch tape, you will need noise reduction,or higher s/n tape like Ampex 456, which by the way requires you to re bias the deck. To go to 24 tracks, noise reduction of some type will be needed unless the tune is uptempo and you are recording at 30 ips.

I don't know of anyone who records to tape first and then converts to digital. Why? and what do you achieve? Another generation of noise entered into the equation.

I always fought S/N ratios and tape oversaturation when trying to record the hottest signal possible. Not necessary in the digital world. With the sampling rates available today you can achieve world class sound and have it sound great. If your ears are miss the bias overlay on tracks then go tape. If you want totally transparent sound go digital.

This reminds of the guys who want records because of the warmth that vinyl produces. It is great if you like the rumble from the turntable because that is the warmth you are hearing.

The closest thing to live sound IMHO is digital and I was able to do enough comparisons in my Nashville days to see how amazing the digital sound could be.

Now we are able to achieve more recording power in a moderately priced digital studio than in a 200,000 analog studio.

Flame away guys.

Hey Georg

I was in Nashville in the 70's and the only choices we had for noise reduction (at least that I was aware of )was DBX and Dolby. Dolby was a royal Pain. Every session needed to be calibrated, tones put on every tape in case the masters left the studio and while it worked okay, I think the Dolby specialist came out to the studio once every couple of weeks to fix or tweak.

We got approached by DBX who let us try a system. Much less messing around but so few studios used it that if there was any chance that a project was to be finished outside the studio we could not use it. Also, on real light soft acoustic stuff, you could hear the compander pumping like crazy.

So Dolby it was...

Regards

Ben Elder wrote:Vintage bluegrass groups can be very illustrative about balancing everything on a single mic. Obviously, the dynamics of an all-acoustic ensemble is different that a group with electric instruments and amplifiers. Watch Flatt & Scruggs, Bill Monroe & the Bluegrass Boys (even Hot Rize a generation later) and other classic groups trade vocals, blend harmony and take instrumental breaks, keeping all voices and instruments at the proper levels. Accomplishing the desired sonic results also involves some amazing choreography as the players swoop in out, back and around--mostly without colliding. Self-mixing on the fly. Almost literally.

THIS IS MY FAVORITE POST BECAUSE THIS IS WHT SHOULD HAPPEN ON LIVE STAGE,EVERY BODY COMPARE THEIR VOLUME OF VOICE AND INSTRUMENT SOUND AND LEAVE ROOM FOR ONE OR THE OTHER TO SHOW OFF THEIR TALENTS GOOD POST benBUDDY!!!!!
tommy

Interesting posts...
But it's rather odd that nobody discusses what happens inside the control room and how it is set up.

This is not the 50's it has no reels but stores a lot of music
http://tascam.com/product/dr-05/

I join my Alumni band from high school 1966 class
I play tuba there

I only had this a 2 months and recorded 2 concerts

This would be good to take to your jam sessions

Most of the stuff back in the '50s (and early '60s) was done with one or two tracks, one or two mikes, and with tube preamps onto magnetic tape. You're simply not going to get the same result using individual mikes, multi-channel mixers, and solid state equipment.

You're right Donny. Most of the time it was a matter of everyone round one central microphone. The only multiple tracking was done in the Les Paul fashion, recording on one tape recorder, then playing back and recording on a second recorder. And every time you did that you lost definition and added tape noise.