Analogue Multitrack

Just as analogue synths fell temporarily from grace in the face of digital synthesis technology, so analogue tape seems to be succumbing to the digital recording revolution. But David Mellor argues that a wise musician is one who learns the lessons of fickle fashion...

As Sound On Sound Editor Paul White remarked in his Leader column a few months ago, it seems to be human nature that as soon as we've found a solution to a problem, we crave a new problem to solve. Analogue magnetic recording has been with us since the turn of the century (which is longer than even Paul and I can remember) and has been of sufficient quality to record music since the 1940s. A further period of 40 years of development brought analogue magnetic recording to the peak of its capability, with a noise floor lower than 16‑bit digital audio (courtesy of Dolby SR noise reduction), a frequency response way beyond the limit that 48kHz sampling imposes, wow and flutter figures below audibility on the most demanding material and last, but not least, a gloriously musical sound quality that makes digital recording seem like forensic science in comparison. Yet in recent years we have been moving over to digital recording with a headlong rush of such vigour that even lemmings would pause to wonder at our folly!

One day everyone will have digital recording available, and truly creative musicians will, as they always have, seek something different.

Having been an audio lemming myself, who discarded an analogue multitrack for a digital version, I have in some respects come to see the error of my ways, and on cold, lonely nights in the chill digital air‑conditioning of my studio I dream of basking in the glow of a warm analog fire. Let's take a look at some of the advantages analogue multitrack had (and has) to offer, and consider some of the trivial problems that led us to think that digital was a more attractive option.

Warmth And Splendour

Perhaps the greatest advantage of analogue recording is its wonderfully 'warm' sound quality. Warmth is the word commonly used to describe the distortion inherent in the magnetic recording process. Distortion is measured as a percentage, and a 16‑bit digital recording can offer distortion figures of around 0.01% or less, which not even Superman can hear. With an analogue recorder the figure increases according to how much level you put on the tape, so you have some control over how much distortion you want. It is usual to record at levels which will produce around 1% distortion on peaks, or up to around 3% if you are really pushing it. Listen to one of my old favourite albums, Who's Next?, by The Who, if you want to hear the obvious, yet creative, use of tape distortion. It is possible to use more distortion on multitrack tape than on stereo tape, where you have to be a little bit careful.

To dispose of analogue recording would be like asking artists not to use oil paints any more because modern acrylic paints are now available.

Harmonic distortion is the addition of whole‑number multiple frequencies to the original frequencies on the tape. This happens naturally in musical instruments, so we tend to think of harmonic distortion as 'musical' distortion. Unfortunately, harmonic distortion also leads to intermodulation distortion, where sum and difference frequencies are added which are not musically related to the original signal. Intermodulation distortion isn't too noticeable on single notes, but can sound absolutely horrible on combinations of notes. On a multitrack recording, each track is distorted separately, so intermodulation distortion is kept to a minimum. Before the days of digital recording we actually used to think that the less distortion there was on a recording, the better that recording would be. Now we know that this is not always true, that distortion is a useful musical tool, and that the analogue multitrack recorder is the optimum environment in which to use it.

I mentioned frequency response earlier, but I don't think I need to say too much about it. A digital recorder will have a frequency response going up to around 20kHz. An analogue recorder can exceed 25kHz. Although few people can hear frequencies as high as this when tested with sine wave signals, it is widely believed that these frequencies do make a useful contribution to a recording of music. Which is why you'll find sampling rates of 96kHz at the leading edge of digital technology; this rate should be able to offer a frequency response of better than 40kHz in theory.

Problems? What Problems?

Analogue recorders do have their problems. But some characteristics that seem problematic on the surface turn out to be to our advantage. One such 'problem' is flutter. Normally we speak of wow and flutter as though they always go together like Pinky and Perky (old timers will remember the two puppet pigs who sing in high‑pitched voices courtesy of a slowed‑down tape recorder — try doing that with your ADAT!). Wow, being a variation in pitch which takes place over around a tenth of a second or more, is usually undesirable. Flutter is the same thing but it occurs over a shorter timescale. If you looked at the spectrum of a sine wave tone recorded on a digital multitrack you would — or at least should — see just one line, the original tone. With an analogue recorder, you'd see a whole host of lines, which represent the original tone plus the sidebands produced by the frequency modulation caused by flutter. Is this undesirable? To a technical engineer, yes. But to anyone with musical ears, this effect is perceived as a 'thickening' of the texture, and applied individually to each separate track of the multitrack tape it can sound great.

Analogue tape suffers from drop‑outs, too, where its magnetic coating is imperfect. Drop‑outs which last half a second or more are bad news, but analogue tape also has what could be called micro drop‑outs, where the signal 'dims' for a fraction of a second. These micro drop‑outs can occur many times in each second and are most obvious if you record a sine wave tone on one of the edge tracks of an analogue multitrack. This will sound horrible, but, once again, on a real music signal it seems to be beneficial, and can make an analogue recording actually sound better than the original input signal. No‑one has ever claimed that a digital recorder could do that.

Where Are They Now?

Now that I've whetted your appetite for analogue multitrack — and I've held back some more tasty morsels to serve up later — you might be wondering where you can get your hands on one. The answer is: you can't — not new, anyway. Fostex and Tascam were the two major manufacturers of affordable analogue multitrack. Fostex have ceased production and Tascam are winding down. If you've just won the lottery you might consider a Studer A820 24‑track, which will cost around the same as the luxury sports car you'll probably also buy. Otari also still make analogue recorders, of which the MTR100 is the top model. The cost of this is comparable to the Studer. If you had to share the jackpot, both Studer and Otari make 'junior' models in the £30k price range! There are, of course, two other options. You might, for instance, already have an analogue multitrack which you haven't got round to disposing of yet. You thought it was old‑fashioned and not worth using. Well, think again. Listen to some of your old recordings and you'll be surprised. If you aren't lucky enough to have an analogue multitrack sitting in the attic you'll be looking at the second‑hand market. There are bargains to be had (or at least there were before this article was published!). There could even be some new stock lingering in warehouses, so scan the small print of the dealer ads in Sound On Sound and you might find one of the last machines off the production line. Let me run down a few of the likely options...

Having been an audio lemming myself, who discarded an analogue multitrack for a digital version, I have in some respects come to see the error of my ways.

The Tape Gallery

• FOSTEX B16
  Going back into the mists of time, there's the machine that started the boom in professional home studios, or project studios, as we might call them now. This was the Fostex B16, which dates from the mid‑1980s. When it first came out, pro engineers didn't believe it was possible to squeeze 16 tracks onto half‑inch tape. But, with precise engineering, clever production design and Dolby C noise reduction, it certainly was. I have to say that examples of the B16 are likely to be getting a little old and wrinkly by now, but if you can find one in good condition at the right price (and I don't think I would want to pay more than £1000 even if it was still shrink‑wrapped) you could be onto a winner.
• TASCAM MODEL 38
  Around the same time as Fostex were doing well with the B16, Tascam had their model 38, which was, as you might guess, an 8‑track machine, also using half‑inch tape. The transport was a bit clunky and no noise reduction was provided, but it definitely has the analogue sound. Once again, judge second‑hand machines very much on condition.
• FOSTEX E16
  Pivotal in the project studio market was Fostex's next analogue 16‑track, the E16. This machine caught the crest of the wave and many are still in use today. The gawky adolescent that was the B16 became a confident adult able to take on the big wide world, and an E16 in good condition would be a good buy now at around £1500 to £1800.
• TASCAM MSR16
  Tascam saw the potential of the market opened up by the E16 and unleashed the MSR16, which covered very much the same ground. It was a little chunkier but its dbx noise reduction, to my mind, emphasises the problems of analogue recording a little too much. Look to pay around the same as an E16 for this worthy machine.
• FOSTEX R8
  In a lower price bracket came the Fostex R8, which was a great little machine, even though it looked like a rich kid's toy. The R8 didn't take proper 10.5‑inch spools like a pro machine would, and you had to use thinner 'long play' tape to get a recording time of around 20 minutes on a reel. But even though it didn't look too impressive, the sound quality was very nearly as good as the E16, and the detachable front panel meant that you didn't have to shell out for a remote control as an extra. You could even put the R8 in a cupboard and hide it from your studio clients! If you do buy an R8, don't be tempted to use standard play tape because the tension is specifically set for long play, and you could wear out the heads more quickly than you might expect.

Fostex also made an 8‑track version of the E16 called, not unnaturally, the E8. There wasn't anything wrong with it, but I gather that it never became a big seller for them. There are also earlier compact Fostex 8‑tracks on the second‑hand market. Age and condition will determine their worth.

• TASCAM TSR8
  The Tascam alternative to the R8 was the TSR8, which did take large spools and looked the business very much more than the R8, but this machine (which is actually still in production, though you'll have to hurry) was more like an updated 38 than an MSR16 with fewer tracks, and I felt that the R8 was the better of the two machines.
• FOSTEX G16S & TASCAM MSR16S
  These two were the last machines off the Fostex and Tascam production lines, along with comparable 24‑track versions which used 1‑inch tape and, in their 'S' versions, employed the Dolby S noise reduction system, which is based on the fully pro Dolby SR. I would say that, of the affordable analogue multitracks, the Tascam MSR24S is king, and with one of these in your studio you'd have no excuse for not making great recordings. I can't give you a guide price because I haven't been able to find any up for sale — which shows that people know when they're onto a good thing. Or perhaps I'm just keeping quiet because I want one for myself and I don't want to stir up the market!

Time To Sell Up?

So is it time to sell your digital multitrack tape machine(s) and buy into the analogue heritage? Would a sensible person take this course of action? What you would lose, of course, is the stability and certainty of digital. Assuming that your digital recorders are functioning properly and that you're using the correct tape, the wonderful thing about digital is how solid everything sounds. No ifs, no buts, no doubts, no maybes. It's all just there and it sounds great. With analogue recording, there's a grey area where you have to listen and judge for yourself. You don't just get great recordings automatically. If you choose not to use noise reduction, for example, which does change the sound quality, you have to work harder to eliminate any obvious noise when you mix your recording. But no‑one can say that you can't make great recordings on analogue — too much wonderful music has been made in exactly that way.

On cold, lonely nights in the chill digital air‑conditioning of my studio I dream of basking in the glow of a warm analog fire.

What you gain from analogue multitrack is, of course, the analogue sound. But there are other factors involved too. When I made the move to digital, I didn't appreciate how inconvenient it would be to record eight tracks on one tape, then synchronise another machine to record the next eight tracks. When you run through the recording process in your imagination it's easy to think that everything will go smoothly. In practice, I find the jump between the first eight tracks and the next a vast chasm, which I end up leaping back and forth across. Admittedly, I use the ADAT format and the Tascam DTRS (DA88) format is inherently much quicker to synchronise because the tapes are smaller and lighter, but it really was so much simpler just to have 16 tracks on one reel of tape. Invite the digital demon into your studio and he brings a surprising number of irritating gremlins with him.

Another digital alternative is the hard disk recorder. Believe me, I've tried hard disk. I've looked at the Akai range from top to bottom and they are all great products, without a doubt — and I'm sure that the other hard disk recorders are too. But at the end of the day you have to back up your data onto tape, either DAT or ADAT. Backing up takes time and there's no verification of the data, so you're never sure that the backup is identical to your original data. Consider the amount of technology involved, the amount of time taken up, and the uncertainty factor — and this is just to perform the equivalent of putting a reel of tape on a shelf! One exclamation mark is simply not enough!! Optical disks may resolve this problem, but it's a problem that analogue never had.

The Future Of Analogue Multitrack

I wrote in my 'Reversing into the Future' article in last month's Sound On Sound that I would like to see a return to analogue recording. Not because I don't think that digital has anything to offer, but because analogue was, and still is, another very useful tool in the recording process. To dispose of it would be like asking artists not to use oil paints any more because modern acrylic paints are now available. Digital recording is not superior to analogue. It's just different. Fostex and Tascam won't shred their analogue technology, I am sure of that. One day everyone will have digital recording available, and truly creative musicians will, as they always have, seek something different. It is quite conceivable that analogue multitracks will stage a comeback after a few years. In the meantime, the second‑hand market is the place to look. Smile kindly on the person you buy yours from, because they may be selling gold for the price of scrap metal. At least, for the moment.