Did you test the other variables that you introduced with this setup? There’s two other devices between the computer and the tape. We expect them to be relatively flat and linear, but they’re analog and relatively low budget and connected in a slightly atypical way, so they’re probably not perfect, and there’s no way to know what effect they have unless we do the whole test without the tape.
Awesome callout, and no, I didn't test those factors at the time. But you're right that they need to be test and ruled out. So I ran the 2nd sine wave chord through one of those cables and the interface, and here are the dB readings for the peaks in the version: 100 Hz: -21.9 dB 250 Hz: -22.5 dB 500 Hz: -22.8 dB 1k Hz: -23.0 dB 2.5k Hz: -22 dB 5k Hz: -22.1 dB 10k Hz: -21.8 dB 15k Hz: -22.7 dB Based on this, I think it's very fair to attribute some of the difference to the cable and to the Focusrite. There's a difference of 1.2 dB b/w the loudest and quietest of these peaks, and that accounts for a material chunk of the volume differences I was observing at frequencies below 1kHz. But it doesn't account for the volume roll-off that I observed above 1kHz in the taped example. So I'd guess that comes from the 424, the tape, or both. Thanks for your comment... I should have done this in the first place!
So if you play the original tone, and the tape altered sound together (lined up perfectly in sync), with the phase inverted on one, the same sounds should cancel out, leaving you with the difference…aka, only the sound of the tape. …at least I think that’ll work
My first band recorded our first album on one of these. When we were able to do the second one digitally in Pro Tools, it was *no contest.* There is a _reason_ why tape became obscure in recording. If you _do_ want to use it, make sure you are using a proper reel-to-reel machine and not a compact cassette toy. Unless your goal is lo-fi, in which case knock yourself out.
The time it took you to make this video is more time than I would have devoted to this problem. Cassette multitrack recorders were "great" in their time because there was no alternative, short of shelling out $26 - $40 per hour to record in some hole-in-the-wall 16 track or 24 track recording studio (Yes, those prices are what I paid in the 80s) But there were always inevitable limitations with trying to record 4 tracks on a 1/4 inch tabe that was travelling only 3.75 inches per second.
I hear you 😂 I like working with these devices, so I try to embrace the moments of frustration and inefficiency. And in this particular case, I had an extra incentive: **I am going to recover this EP project.**
That's 0.150" wide tape, at 1.875 IPS. Even Ampex 456 or Scotch 226 at 15 IPS are pretty limited in dynamic range and distortion, compared to any current digital recorder. Even a little Tascam battery audio for video mobile 4 track can do 24 bit PCM, and SD cards cost a lot less than tape, plus are easier to store and harder to damage. Is suspect a bias issue in the old 224 cassette, and maybe other alignment issues. A realistic cost to service it might be $250, which is another factor pushing users away from archaic technology.
i used to have one of these! and something i noticed was the inputs themselves seemed to have a characteristic sound. i used to use it as a mixer to plug in instruments and mics onto and just go straight out into my computer-not recording onto tape at all. so i would suggest that as another test, to see if the inputs affect the sound.
Honestly, it was a cliffhanger for me too. Because I've had prior issues that I associated with this machine, I expected to see and hear something definitive... and I didn't. I listened to 22 minutes of test tone and heard obvious wobble only once. And I didn't hear the other things that afflicted my latest recordings, like the patches of muffled sound. So my best guess, today, is that the tape is the main factor. (That's also what I concluded the last time I had issues using this device.) Meaning that my next step will be to bounce my tracks onto a new medium for storage, probably a VHS tape. Then I'll bounce them back into the Tascam, onto new cassettes, and continue.
@@JordanSeal surely the pitch issue would affect all the channels at the same time. There isn't anything in a preamp that can change pitch, just the tape transport can change the pitch, or a flaw in the tape that made it stick for a moment. The pitch issue could have happened as you did the recording, or when playing it back. If it occurred at the same spot every time then you know it was the recording. The whole point of tape (to me) is that it sounds different. Having a darker channel might be a benefit. You can plan to record bass or mainly low frequency sounds on that track.
That was my original guess with the popping... including b/c there wasn't any popping on the other tracks/channels. But could the electrical be causing the pitch wobble? Of course, I might have two separate causes for two separate problems.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
Did you test the other variables that you introduced with this setup? There’s two other devices between the computer and the tape. We expect them to be relatively flat and linear, but they’re analog and relatively low budget and connected in a slightly atypical way, so they’re probably not perfect, and there’s no way to know what effect they have unless we do the whole test without the tape.
Awesome callout, and no, I didn't test those factors at the time. But you're right that they need to be test and ruled out. So I ran the 2nd sine wave chord through one of those cables and the interface, and here are the dB readings for the peaks in the version:
100 Hz: -21.9 dB
250 Hz: -22.5 dB
500 Hz: -22.8 dB
1k Hz: -23.0 dB
2.5k Hz: -22 dB
5k Hz: -22.1 dB
10k Hz: -21.8 dB
15k Hz: -22.7 dB
Based on this, I think it's very fair to attribute some of the difference to the cable and to the Focusrite. There's a difference of 1.2 dB b/w the loudest and quietest of these peaks, and that accounts for a material chunk of the volume differences I was observing at frequencies below 1kHz. But it doesn't account for the volume roll-off that I observed above 1kHz in the taped example. So I'd guess that comes from the 424, the tape, or both.
Thanks for your comment... I should have done this in the first place!
So if you play the original tone, and the tape altered sound together (lined up perfectly in sync), with the phase inverted on one, the same sounds should cancel out, leaving you with the difference…aka, only the sound of the tape. …at least I think that’ll work
My first band recorded our first album on one of these. When we were able to do the second one digitally in Pro Tools, it was *no contest.* There is a _reason_ why tape became obscure in recording. If you _do_ want to use it, make sure you are using a proper reel-to-reel machine and not a compact cassette toy. Unless your goal is lo-fi, in which case knock yourself out.
what a great idea
you should do a sine sweep
You are so right.
I cannot overstate how underqualified I am to have this channel 🤣
The time it took you to make this video is more time than I would have devoted to this problem. Cassette multitrack recorders were "great" in their time because there was no alternative, short of shelling out $26 - $40 per hour to record in some hole-in-the-wall 16 track or 24 track recording studio (Yes, those prices are what I paid in the 80s) But there were always inevitable limitations with trying to record 4 tracks on a 1/4 inch tabe that was travelling only 3.75 inches per second.
I hear you 😂 I like working with these devices, so I try to embrace the moments of frustration and inefficiency. And in this particular case, I had an extra incentive: **I am going to recover this EP project.**
That's 0.150" wide tape, at 1.875 IPS.
Even Ampex 456 or Scotch 226 at 15 IPS are pretty limited in dynamic range and distortion, compared to any current digital recorder. Even a little Tascam battery audio for video mobile 4 track can do 24 bit PCM, and SD cards cost a lot less than tape, plus are easier to store and harder to damage.
Is suspect a bias issue in the old 224 cassette, and maybe other alignment issues. A realistic cost to service it might be $250, which is another factor pushing users away from archaic technology.
i used to have one of these! and something i noticed was the inputs themselves seemed to have a characteristic sound. i used to use it as a mixer to plug in instruments and mics onto and just go straight out into my computer-not recording onto tape at all. so i would suggest that as another test, to see if the inputs affect the sound.
genius move with the headphone amp! I've got the same and it's very useful
It's a great little device, and cheap!
Why oh why did I get rid of mine. The tape section wasn't working properly (either unstable motor or issues with the pitch pot) but still, mojo.
Cliff hanger? Can the apparent wobble in track 2 be addressed or repaired? What might it be? Alignment? Bad capacitor? Thanks.
Honestly, it was a cliffhanger for me too. Because I've had prior issues that I associated with this machine, I expected to see and hear something definitive... and I didn't. I listened to 22 minutes of test tone and heard obvious wobble only once. And I didn't hear the other things that afflicted my latest recordings, like the patches of muffled sound.
So my best guess, today, is that the tape is the main factor. (That's also what I concluded the last time I had issues using this device.) Meaning that my next step will be to bounce my tracks onto a new medium for storage, probably a VHS tape. Then I'll bounce them back into the Tascam, onto new cassettes, and continue.
@@JordanSeal Cool. Dig your quirky channel and commitment to recording with whatever you got.
@@JordanSeal surely the pitch issue would affect all the channels at the same time. There isn't anything in a preamp that can change pitch, just the tape transport can change the pitch, or a flaw in the tape that made it stick for a moment.
The pitch issue could have happened as you did the recording, or when playing it back. If it occurred at the same spot every time then you know it was the recording.
The whole point of tape (to me) is that it sounds different. Having a darker channel might be a benefit. You can plan to record bass or mainly low frequency sounds on that track.
Informative video, Jordan. Please keep making videos as we all find them very interesting and entertaining. Thank you!
Thanks! And I’m glad to keep ‘em coming!
you sort of look and sound like Anthony Fantano but with more hair
Almost certianly an electrical issue on the channel.
That was my original guess with the popping... including b/c there wasn't any popping on the other tracks/channels. But could the electrical be causing the pitch wobble?
Of course, I might have two separate causes for two separate problems.
You really had the audacity to use audacity smdh