Cassette Vulture

[StephenM]

what the?

I kept pretty meticulous records on my process: naming conventions for my cassette labels, tape counter positions on both the Ross 4x4 and the cassette deck (so I could quickly locate songs on either deck).

I developed a record-keeping process for the MBR as well. I think that is partially why the Boss Micro BR eventually stuck with me, whereas some people find it too fidgety and idiosyncratic. It goes somewhat against my messy nature. But I think I approached digital home recording with prior assumption that pencil and paper would be involved.

i totally dig you and your process... but I also know that when i read your stuff sometimes i find myself saying exactly that... i love looking at all our differences!

[Zoltan]

There's so much good stuff here and also things that make me wonder.

Ted and his speed thing. The tracker i have has already regular and high tape speed. The high tape speed is the one that has the best audio quality. What if i used boh high speed and high pitch. Would that make for even better recordings?

Also about the tapes. The recommended tape for the tracker is Tape II, Chrome 70 µS. I have a source where i can get pre-recorded new tapes that are Tape II, Chrome, but they're 120 µS. All of the recordings i've posted so far have been done on such a tape. Those are 2,5€ / tape.

I read somewhere that commercial (pre-recorded) tapes aren't the best anyway because they're done differently?! I'm not sure if it's bollocks, or not. I've used them for regular taping when i was young. But for musical use i'd rather use the "best".

Yesterday i bought a few used tapes from late 70's (!) that seem to play ok. As crazy as that sounds. They're the right kind. I'm wondering if i should just get all those new tapes regardless of them being 120 µS, or keep on looking for NOS tapes that are 70 µS?

I have a feeling that when i was young i never paid no mind to things like these. I just used whatever tape was the cheapest. Not sure if anything has changed as... as of now i'm still doing the same

[SteveB]

Very good reads, guys. Well done. And I think that we have to acknowledge the creative freedom that those 4-track cassette recorders introduced into the life of many musos. Thank you, Tascam et al.
I've written elsewhere on here how after several years of no musical-activity on my part leading into the mid 1980s, and while taking a short cut through a side street where my local town's single music shop was situated, I stood transfixed looking into the shop window where a display had been set up which featured what I would learn was a Tascam Porta2 – that in itself floored me, but sneakily, they had also put up a rack of those Boss Micro effects at the side, thus creating something like this photo:

I was completely dumbfounded. Imagine the potential! I had had two Philips reel-to-reel tape recorders from the late 1960s and into the mid 1970s, but had become bored with the whole shebang and then Punk came along to prove that the Music Biz is a giant con anyway. (More when time allows).

[Pete C]

An interesting read! Takes me back to about 1986 and my first experience with home recording. A friend lent me his Fostex 4 track and a very early drum machine for a couple of weeks. The only instruments I had at the time were my Squier Stratocaster and a Casio VL Tone. I somehow managed to put together about 6 cover songs, from memory Boys don't cry and Inbetween Days by the Cure, It's only love by Bryan Adams, Hit me with your best shot by Pat Benatar and a couple more I can't remember.

Not sure what the drum machine was but I remember you somehow programmed a beat by tapping the 2 buttons on it. The Casio was used for the bass and other keys, the Strat (and my 2 pedals) for the guitar parts and I had a very basic microphone for the vocals. I remember you could record 3 tracks then bounce them onto the 4th then re-record over the first 3.

I proudly took the tape into work and played it to some colleagues at lunchtime where it was met with some degree of ridicule.

It wasn't until 2007 that I had another attempt when I bought my Boss BR600 then joined Songcrafters in 2010.

[StephenM]

ooo.. this post is getting better by the minute...
memories of ridicule and gear lust from window shopping.  Yes, we have experienced the highs and the lows.  If then we could have only thought how much we would still one a 4 track cassette even 30 or 40 years later. 

here are a few finds on bias and eq.

70us and 120us refer to the playback equalization settings on cassette tape decks, specifically Type II and Type I tapes, respectively. Playing a 70us tape on a 120us setting will result in a treble boost, while playing a 120us tape on a 70us setting will result in a treble cut. The 70us setting is generally used for Chrome or Type II tapes, while the 120us setting is for ferric or Type I tapes.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
70us (High Bias):
This setting is used for tapes like Chrome and Type II, which have higher bias requirements.
120us (Low Bias):
This setting is used for standard ferric or Type I tapes, which have lower bias requirements.
Playback EQ:
The 70us and 120us settings relate to the playback equalization, which affects how high-frequency sounds are reproduced.
Treble Shift:
Playing a 70us tape on 120us will give a 4.5 dB high-frequency boost, while playing a 120us tape on 70us will result in a treble cut, according to Duplication.com and a Reddit thread.
Bias Setting Only for Recording:
The bias setting on a cassette deck only affects the recording process, not the playback equalization.
Why the 70us Setting?
Lowering the time constant to 70us decreased the apparent hiss level, according to Wikipedia, but also decreased the apparent high-frequency saturation level. The industry chose this compromise because Type II and IV tapes were less prone to high-frequency saturation than ferric tapes.

[Ted]

I have a source where i can get pre-recorded new tapes that are Tape II, Chrome, but they're 120 µS. All of the recordings i've posted so far have been done on such a tape. Those are 2,5€ / tape.

Just to confirm — are you saying you buy sealed pre-recorded albums on Type II Chrome tape (120 µs) and record over them for your own music projects? If so, I would not have expected that there's a huge stock of unsold albums recorded on high-quality tape (new old stock).

I read somewhere that commercial (pre-recorded) tapes aren't the best anyway because they're done differently?! I'm not sure if it's bollocks, or not. I've used them for regular taping when i was young. But for musical use i'd rather use the "best".

In the "things only dogs can hear" category: there's a slight high-frequency dip from a 120 µs playback EQ. Whoop-di-do! If you were duplicating commercial tapes to sell on the black market, maybe your customers would care. But you're home recording — tracking, mixing, and EQing by ear. You're already adjusting for this tiny difference without even thinking about it.

I proudly took the tape into work and played it to some colleagues at lunchtime where it was met with some degree of ridicule.

If you've never been there – with co-workers, friends, romantic partners – are you even a Songcrafter?

[Zoltan]

Just to confirm — are you saying you buy sealed pre-recorded albums on Type II Chrome tape (120 µs) and record over them for your own music projects? If so, I would not have expected that there's a huge stock of unsold albums recorded on high-quality tape (new old stock).

Yes! Sealed! The ones i bought are from 1989-1990 and are proudly showcasing that they're Type II Chrome (120 µs) tapes!

[Johnbee]

Yeah, this is a great thread.  Back in 1977 I wrote my first song with an acoustic guitar that I learned 4 chords for from a Mel Bay book (does anybody remember EFG-Whiz)?  Then I had a stereo cassette recorder that I initially used to tape songs off of WIFI 92.5 FM Philadelphia.  Then I bought a Pioneer Reel to Reel and started recording my original songs by playing one part on one machine and transferring it to the other and adding another sound on top.  This was the process called Sound on Sound which I thought at the time I invented but later found out guys like Les Paul and Buddy Holly were using years before me.  Then, in 1984 I bought a Fostex X-15 and 3 years later upgraded to a Fostex 160 Multitracker which ran at double speed and had better EQ capabilities.  It could also connect one effect (for which I picked an Alesis Microverb II).  Then in 2005 I finally went digital with a Zoom MRS 802.  From there it was DAW-land.  First Samplitude, then Cakewalk and now Studio One.  I still think my recordings suck sound-wise but it's been an adventure.  Interesting to see what some of you guys "cut your teeth" on.  Before the internet I thought I was the only weirdo who did this kind of thing.  Glad to see I wasn't the only crazy one.

  JB

[Ted]

Rather than hijack this thread, I started another thread:

The Real Reason Why Analog Recording Is Better

A video by music producer Billy Hume, where he makes the case that the slowness (what I call the "inconvenience") of recording to analog facilitates good creative and artistic choices.

[Zoltan]

I've been enjoying all these comments here!

Today i made some new real breakthroughs. The tapes really matter!

I've been using (almost) right types of tapes from the beginning, but being that they're mechanical things and also old... It isn't only the sound that's different. It's also the tape drift!

I know the machine itself can drift, but i have two good sounding tapes which both record well. The one that has better sound for drums and stuff drifts like crazy. The other one doesn't. The one that has it worse starts drifting after a few beats The one that works better can take the song to about chorus until one notices that things aren't like they should be.

I did do the SMTP thing and made Reaper to synch with the 4 track, but with proper tapes it possible to JUST DO IT! As they say.

Also DBX. That can do wonders with synths. Oh boy. Oh joy. I still think it's faster to do stuff with this