• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

TEAC A-3340S Help

randyrhoads1

randyrhoads1

RandyRhoads1981
Hello I'm new here.
My name is Thomas, I am 19 years old,
I am building my first home-recording studio with all analog gear.
My main unit is a TEAC A-3340S Tapre deck.
I also have a TEAC CX-650R Cassette Deck that is badass.
The guy I bought it from said that the playback has a lag of about a second and that it may be in need of a new belt.
Any Suggestions?
Anyways, I just purchased a TEAC A-3340S Reel To Reel off Ebay and the thing starts off good and then slows down to a complete stop.
Does the same in Fast-foward and in reverse, the reels go so fast and out of control, I think they're going to fly away and cut my head off.

Another thing I need help with is: I have plans with my songs, to record many tracks and overdubs. in between 8 to 12 or so. Less on others.

Would I need to take the first 4 recorded tracks, on the first deck, and transfer them to another reel, onto the 1st of 4 tracks on the other deck, and then repeat the process three more times?
How would I transfer the material?
mic the first deck?

Another thing is, The deck is very dusty inside,
How would I get rid of that?
I didn't want to get normal dust cleaner, not knowing if it would damage the deck.


thnx very much,
Thomas Wright
 
Register to hide this ad
Dust is not the enemy of your machine. Lack of use is.

The 3340 usually needs a new belt, but nearly always the pinch roller arm assembly is sticky or frozen. This causes the roller to contact the capstan too weakly to run the tape.

The "one second lag" could be the result of failure to use "sound on sound" to make tapes. Sound on sound uses the recording head as a playback head so that there is no time lag between that which is monitored and that which is laid down on a new track.

Back in the late seventies, when these machines were golden, many a garage band would record drums on track one, then lay down the bass guitar on track two, then record the lead guitar on track three, and finally the singer on track four.

Best,

Fred
 
Fred Longworth said:
The "one second lag" could be the result of failure to use "sound on sound" to make tapes.
Click to expand...

Hi Fred. I believe "one second lag" referred to the cassette deck, not the 3340. Maybe you knew that and the CX-650 also does SOS, in which case apologies. I took it to mean the deck is playing slow.

randyrhoads1 said:
Another thing I need help with is: I have plans with my songs, to record many tracks and overdubs. in between 8 to 12 or so. Less on others.

Would I need to take the first 4 recorded tracks, on the first deck, and transfer them to another reel, onto the 1st of 4 tracks on the other deck, and then repeat the process three more times?
How would I transfer the material?
mic the first deck?
Click to expand...

Transferring to another machine generally isn't easy unless you record all tracks of the second machine at the same time (in which case you don't gain any extra tracks) because otherwise you have no way to keep the tracks of the second machine in sync with each other. Later on, professional machines incorporated time tracks onto which a time code was recorded and a special piece of kit would read the time codes on both machines and control the starting/stopping and speeds of each deck to keep them in sync. That way, decks could be daisy-chained to multiply the number of available tracks. The 'Simul-Sync' feature of your A-3340 is only reliable for recording live tracks because you, the human, are the only piece of equipment you have that intrinsically knows when to start and stop playing or singing. If you are talking about transferring all of your synched up tracks from one machine to a single track on the other, then recording some more live tracks on the second machine, that will work but you are also moving into more generations (and more generations equals more noise). If that's not a limitation for you, you could have achieved the same thing with just the one machine.

More than 4 tracks can be recorded on the 3340 by 'bouncing' them and I've seen it written that you can get up to 10 with no track going beyond 2nd generation. Actually, I think it was VintageTX who said that on what I presume is his website. It's a bit like a chinese puzzle and I'm sure different people can see different ways of doing it. I can only figure out how to do 7 without going into 3rd gen so I'd like to hear from anyone who can solve the puzzle for 10 tracks/2nd gen. I think it might depend on the definition of '2nd generation' which, to my mind means 1st copy (the material has been recorded twice after copying it once) but, if you go into 2nd copy, I can see the way up to 11 tracks.
 
Record tracks 1,2,3 with stuff,, mix is to track 4.

When you are monitoring what you have previously recorded, use the simul-sync switch set to sync. When you mixdown, use the normal setting.

Then, erase tracks 1,2,3 and you have 3 more to work with. Fill two, and mix all down back to track 1, etc....

Oh BTW I am 17, and I have a 3340S, and a A3340S.
 
Last edited:
Hello Thomas...

Welcome to AK...

It is great to see a younger person interested in analog audio:thmbsp::thmbsp::thmbsp:

Good luck with your recording endeavor.
 
The problem with the tape slowing on this machine will be caused by gunge along the tape path, why? because it slows in winding as well as playback. A worn belt will only affect payback so clean the tape path really well and use newish "Non sticky" tapes. I clean the inners with a compressed air line.

If the cassette deck is a "Three head" one there will always be a lag when recording and monitoring the output, but a second seems a long lag to me?

Have fun and enjoy!!!
 
Fred Longworth said:
Dust is not the enemy of your machine. Lack of use is.

The 3340 usually needs a new belt, but nearly always the pinch roller arm assembly is sticky or frozen. This causes the roller to contact the capstan too weakly to run the tape.

The "one second lag" could be the result of failure to use "sound on sound" to make tapes. Sound on sound uses the recording head as a playback head so that there is no time lag between that which is monitored and that which is laid down on a new track.

Back in the late seventies, when these machines were golden, many a garage band would record drums on track one, then lay down the bass guitar on track two, then record the lead guitar on track three, and finally the singer on track four.

Best,

Fred
Click to expand...



Hey man, thanks a bunch for the help!

You guys here are really cool

I posted at homerecording.com and this dude was a total jerk in his reply.

thanks again


Thomas Wright
 
vinyldavid said:
Record tracks 1,2,3 with stuff,, mix is to track 4.

When you are monitoring what you have previously recorded, use the simul-sync switch set to sync. When you mixdown, use the normal setting.

Then, erase tracks 1,2,3 and you have 3 more to work with. Fill two, and mix all down back to track 1, etc....

Oh BTW I am 17, and I have a 3340S, and a A3340S.
Click to expand...



Thnx for the advice,

It's really cool to see someone else my age into analog recording

let alone has TWO 3340S DECKS!!!

Thats Awesome.

I sorta understand the recording thing you said, I need a bit of clarification.

I hate to sound naive but, could you tell me how to mixdown with the tape decks?

thnx again,
Thomas Wright
 
fortycoats said:
Hi Fred. I believe "one second lag" referred to the cassette deck, not the 3340. Maybe you knew that and the CX-650 also does SOS, in which case apologies. I took it to mean the deck is playing slow.



Transferring to another machine generally isn't easy unless you record all tracks of the second machine at the same time (in which case you don't gain any extra tracks) because otherwise you have no way to keep the tracks of the second machine in sync with each other. Later on, professional machines incorporated time tracks onto which a time code was recorded and a special piece of kit would read the time codes on both machines and control the starting/stopping and speeds of each deck to keep them in sync. That way, decks could be daisy-chained to multiply the number of available tracks. The 'Simul-Sync' feature of your A-3340 is only reliable for recording live tracks because you, the human, are the only piece of equipment you have that intrinsically knows when to start and stop playing or singing. If you are talking about transferring all of your synched up tracks from one machine to a single track on the other, then recording some more live tracks on the second machine, that will work but you are also moving into more generations (and more generations equals more noise). If that's not a limitation for you, you could have achieved the same thing with just the one machine.

More than 4 tracks can be recorded on the 3340 by 'bouncing' them and I've seen it written that you can get up to 10 with no track going beyond 2nd generation. Actually, I think it was VintageTX who said that on what I presume is his website. It's a bit like a chinese puzzle and I'm sure different people can see different ways of doing it. I can only figure out how to do 7 without going into 3rd gen so I'd like to hear from anyone who can solve the puzzle for 10 tracks/2nd gen. I think it might depend on the definition of '2nd generation' which, to my mind means 1st copy (the material has been recorded twice after copying it once) but, if you go into 2nd copy, I can see the way up to 11 tracks.
Click to expand...



Thnx dude, that was very helpful!

I have a couple questions,
These are for you and everybody else, who wants to add:

1) What is bouncing tracks and how do you do that?
I have heard that before but don't know.

2)How can 7 tracks be recorded?

3)Would the TEAC AN-300 Noise Reduction Unit help with the build-up of noise?

4) You said "more generations equals more noise. If that's not a limitation for you, you could have achieved the same thing with just the one machine."

How can I do that with one deck?


Here is a general question for everyone:

Would acquiring more Reel To Reel decks be beneficial?

Thnx so much everyone!!
Thomas Wright
 
randyrhoads1 said:
Thnx for the advice,

It's really cool to see someone else my age into analog recording

let alone has TWO 3340S DECKS!!!

Thats Awesome.

I sorta understand the recording thing you said, I need a bit of clarification.

I hate to sound naive but, could you tell me how to mixdown with the tape decks?

thnx again,
Thomas Wright
Click to expand...

I might be getting two more original 3340's. One's a parts unit.

I also have a Teac X-3, Tascam 34B, and a Teac 3300-2T. Those are my daily drivers. The 3340s actually just sit....I am trying to think of a use for them.

On the sick list, I have a Teac A-6010, Tascam 22-2 and a ReVox A77 (that's all I care to remember :D)

mixdown...umm...I'd mixdown to digital if I were you. Get a mixer, and connect the 4T outputs to the line inputs, and the stereo outputs to a nice audio interface, and mix down to that. That is, after you are done bouncin tracks around, and stuff.

I'd skip cassette if at all possible....they are just a PITA, and IMHO, don't sound that good at all. That's just been my experience.

Also, for recording a ton of tracks and bouncing...you need a mixer....also, after 30+ years, the mic preamps in the machine are not that great, so don't go direct into it...I speak from experience here. Get a mixer with 4 busses. I use a Tascam M30 with my Tascam 34B, and the M30 was kinda made to go with the 3340 series...sounds decent, routing is amazing, and it is totally flexible. Great mixer to start out with, and the features are top notch. Highly recommended.

Don't use Dolby....in my expeirence, it messes with the sound more than it helps.

And definitely not when recording multrack stuff..that would be darn near impossible..
 
Last edited:
OK, so 'bouncing' just means you record material on one track and then transfer it to another. It implies patching the output of the one channel to the input of the other on the deck so, if you need to transfer more than one track at a time (which you will do, otherwise you don't gain anything), you need a mixer as VinylDavid pointed out. For example, if you recorded tracks 1, 2 and 3 and wanted to then put all three of those onto track 4, you couldn't patch the three outputs to the one input without a mixer. Well, theoretically you could use some sort of 3 to 1 adapter but you'd have no control over the levels and it would sound like crap.

So, to record 7 tracks without going beyond 2nd generation (bearing in mind that my definition of '2nd generation' is first copy -- after copying for the first time, the tracks have now been recorded twice, same as if you copied them to another tape):

  1. Record on tracks 1, 2 and 3.
  2. Bounce tracks 1, 2 and 3 onto track 4. Now all three recordings are on track 4 and tracks 1, 2 and 3 are free again.
  3. Record on tracks 1 and 2.
  4. Bounce tracks 1 and 2 onto track 3. Now both new recordings are on track 3 and tracks 1 and 2 are free again.
  5. Record on track 1.
  6. Record on track 2.

So, that gave you three recordings on track 4, two recordings on track 3 and one each on tracks 2 and 1, giving you seven recordings on four tracks with none going beyond 2nd generation. Note that I have started using the word "recording". The three recordings on track 4 are now one track. Their levels are fixed in relation to each other (as decided by you at the mixer when you bounced them) and they can no longer be manipulated individually. This is one reason why more actual tracks are better (others being noise accumulation and time/effort involved) because, the more tracks you have, the more recordings ("parts" if you like) you can keep separate and control individually. So, in other words, you have to plan in advance if you're working with less tracks, otherwise it'll be all wrong when it comes to the final mix-down. The mix-down is when you take all the material you have accumulated on the multi-track and transfer it all down to two stereo tracks -- typically on a separate, 2-track machine. Obviously these days there are 5.1 mix-downs and various other formats too (and back in the day some people did Quad mix-downs) but you get the drift.

Now, if you wanted to go beyond 2nd generation, here's how I can see the way up to 11 tracks:

  1. Record on tracks 1, 2 and 3.
  2. Bounce tracks 1, 2 and 3 onto track 4. Now all three recordings are on track 4 and tracks 1, 2 and 3 are free again.
  3. Record on tracks 1 and 2.
  4. Bounce tracks 1 and 2 onto track 3. Now both new recordings are on track 3 and tracks 1 and 2 are free again.
  5. Record on track 2. You now have six recordings stored.
  6. Bounce tracks 2, 3 and 4 onto track 1. Now the previous six recordings are on track 1 (with most gone to 3rd generation) and tracks 2, 3 and 4 are free again.
  7. Record on tracks 2 and 3.
  8. Bounce tracks 2 and 3 onto track 4. Now both new recordings are on track 4 and tracks 2 and 3 are free again.
  9. Record on track 3.
  10. Bounce tracks 3 and 4 onto track 2. Now the two previous recordings from track 4 are on track 2 (at 3rd generation), mixed in with the previous recording from track 3 and tracks 3 and 4 are free again.
  11. Record on track 3.
  12. Record on track 4.

So, that gave you six recordings on track 1, three recordings on track 2 and one each on tracks 3 and 4, giving you eleven recordings on four tracks with none going beyond 3rd generation. I used an over-and-back approach above with the track numbers just because I think it makes it clearer (probably not) but the order you use the tracks in doesn't matter.

As I said in my earlier post, it might depend on the definition of 'generation' (is '2nd geration' the second copy or the first copy?) and I can only see the way to 7 tracks without going beyond 2nd generation so I'd love to know how to achieve 10, if it is possible. But, using the other interpretation of 'generation', I think that makes it 11.

In any case, just as though you were copying a cassette to another, every time you copy over, the background noise accumulates. Thankfully the background noise is very low on R2R at 7.5 or 15 ips but there's still a limitation as to how far you can go. That AN-300 is a Dolby-B unit. Dolby-B has never done anything for me but that unit is a much more professional unit than the simple button you find on a cassette deck, i.e. everything can be tweaked and calibrated on it. If I were you, I wouldn't worry about that right now and see how you get on without any NR. AN-300s are hard to come by in any case and most are likely to be gone out of whack by now. Come back to the NR discussion if and when you feel the need as there are other options like DBX and even software to consider.

Regarding "Would acquiring more Reel To Reel decks be beneficial?" Well, I'll leave it up to you to discover how much benefit you'd get from having more but, if you're like me, once you get one of them, you'll want more whether you need them or not!
 
fortycoats said:
OK, so 'bouncing' just means you record material on one track and then transfer it to another. It implies patching the output of the one channel to the input of the other on the deck so, if you need to transfer more than one track at a time (which you will do, otherwise you don't gain anything), you need a mixer as VinylDavid pointed out. For example, if you recorded tracks 1, 2 and 3 and wanted to then put all three of those onto track 4, you couldn't patch the three outputs to the one input without a mixer. Well, theoretically you could use some sort of 3 to 1 adapter but you'd have no control over the levels and it would sound like crap.

So, to record 7 tracks without going beyond 2nd generation (bearing in mind that my definition of '2nd generation' is first copy -- after copying for the first time, the tracks have now been recorded twice, same as if you copied them to another tape):

  1. Record on tracks 1, 2 and 3.
  2. Bounce tracks 1, 2 and 3 onto track 4. Now all three recordings are on track 4 and tracks 1, 2 and 3 are free again.
  3. Record on tracks 1 and 2.
  4. Bounce tracks 1 and 2 onto track 3. Now both new recordings are on track 3 and tracks 1 and 2 are free again.
  5. Record on track 1.
  6. Record on track 2.

So, that gave you three recordings on track 4, two recordings on track 3 and one each on tracks 2 and 1, giving you seven recordings on four tracks with none going beyond 2nd generation. Note that I have started using the word "recording". The three recordings on track 4 are now one track. Their levels are fixed in relation to each other (as decided by you at the mixer when you bounced them) and they can no longer be manipulated individually. This is one reason why more actual tracks are better (others being noise accumulation and time/effort involved) because, the more tracks you have, the more recordings ("parts" if you like) you can keep separate and control individually. So, in other words, you have to plan in advance if you're working with less tracks, otherwise it'll be all wrong when it comes to the final mix-down. The mix-down is when you take all the material you have accumulated on the multi-track and transfer it all down to two stereo tracks -- typically on a separate, 2-track machine. Obviously these days there are 5.1 mix-downs and various other formats too (and back in the day some people did Quad mix-downs) but you get the drift.

Now, if you wanted to go beyond 2nd generation, here's how I can see the way up to 11 tracks:

  1. Record on tracks 1, 2 and 3.
  2. Bounce tracks 1, 2 and 3 onto track 4. Now all three recordings are on track 4 and tracks 1, 2 and 3 are free again.
  3. Record on tracks 1 and 2.
  4. Bounce tracks 1 and 2 onto track 3. Now both new recordings are on track 3 and tracks 1 and 2 are free again.
  5. Record on track 2. You now have six recordings stored.
  6. Bounce tracks 2, 3 and 4 onto track 1. Now the previous six recordings are on track 1 (with most gone to 3rd generation) and tracks 2, 3 and 4 are free again.
  7. Record on tracks 2 and 3.
  8. Bounce tracks 2 and 3 onto track 4. Now both new recordings are on track 4 and tracks 2 and 3 are free again.
  9. Record on track 3.
  10. Bounce tracks 3 and 4 onto track 2. Now the two previous recordings from track 4 are on track 2 (at 3rd generation), mixed in with the previous recording from track 3 and tracks 3 and 4 are free again.
  11. Record on track 3.
  12. Record on track 4.

So, that gave you six recordings on track 1, three recordings on track 2 and one each on tracks 3 and 4, giving you eleven recordings on four tracks with none going beyond 3rd generation. I used an over-and-back approach above with the track numbers just because I think it makes it clearer (probably not) but the order you use the tracks in doesn't matter.

As I said in my earlier post, it might depend on the definition of 'generation' (is '2nd geration' the second copy or the first copy?) and I can only see the way to 7 tracks without going beyond 2nd generation so I'd love to know how to achieve 10, if it is possible. But, using the other interpretation of 'generation', I think that makes it 11.

In any case, just as though you were copying a cassette to another, every time you copy over, the background noise accumulates. Thankfully the background noise is very low on R2R at 7.5 or 15 ips but there's still a limitation as to how far you can go. That AN-300 is a Dolby-B unit. Dolby-B has never done anything for me but that unit is a much more professional unit than the simple button you find on a cassette deck, i.e. everything can be tweaked and calibrated on it. If I were you, I wouldn't worry about that right now and see how you get on without any NR. AN-300s are hard to come by in any case and most are likely to be gone out of whack by now. Come back to the NR discussion if and when you feel the need as there are other options like DBX and even software to consider.

Regarding "Would acquiring more Reel To Reel decks be beneficial?" Well, I'll leave it up to you to discover how much benefit you'd get from having more but, if you're like me, once you get one of them, you'll want more whether you need them or not!
Click to expand...


WOW!!!
That was pretty impressive.

That's intense stuff.

I appreciate all of that, it made it much clearer.

So basically, you could go on forever with the amount of tracks, right?

The problem is noise accumulation?


I just wonder how Pink Floyd got crystal Clear sound with SO many tracks and overdubs?

I have the Pink Floyd book by Nick Mason and He talks about using reels quite a bit.

That last bit was well said.

thnx again man,
Thomas Wright
 
Pink floyd used tape probably running at 30ips, and professional quality machines, versus the prosumer 3340 series decks.

Also, they had a LOT more tracks to work with, so track bouncing was probably never an issue. Also, there are noise gates and DBX NR for this purpose...I would never use dolby for recording anything in a 'studio' setting. Some Tascam/Teac R2R's had interfaces for DBX encoders and decoders built in, and they used a special cable....I think that my 34B has one, and I know that the 44OB has one, also.
 
I don't want to contradict anyone here, especially since I'm no recording engineeer, but I believe that Dolby-A was pretty common in professional situations 'back in the day'. Dolby-A never made it into consumer use (and, for all I know, might not even have been called that until consumer-type "B" came along).

Whatever about 30 ips (I've heard it didn't become common until the late 70s/early 80s but, again, I'm no recording engineer and don't-want-to/will-not-knowingly contradict others in this regard), even if they were using slower speeds, they almost certainly had more tracks than 4. The Teac A-3340 (and its successor, the A-3440, which is the deck I have) was primarily intended for use by musicians wishing to record 'ideas' at home, on a budget. It was the first 'home studio', if you will, but was not intended to be a replacement for real studio machines. As I think I explained previously, more tracks are better and one of the benefits of that is less noise. If you have, say, 12 parts to record and you have a 16-track recorder, you can record all of those parts at 1st generation. You can also then do the stereo mix-down with complete control over the relative levels of every individual track.

There were/are many formats in tape recording. Tape width is one factor and number of tracks is another. The machine you have uses 1/4 inch (wide) tape and puts 4 tracks on that. In studios, there were/are 1/2 inch tapes with 8 tracks, 1 inch tapes with 16 tracks and 2 inch tapes with 24 and 32 tracks. Stereo mix-down might typically have used 1/4 inch tape with only 2 tracks and some people now reckon (eg. ATR, one of the only remaining manufacturers of R2R tape) that the best quality possible is obtainable from 1 inch tape with 2 tracks. The number of tracks depends entirely on the construction of the record/playback heads, as I'm sure you have figured out, and less tracks means more tape width per track, which is better (to a point) in terms of sound quality.

One of my favourite musicians (to have ever graced the planet) was an Irish guitarist by the name of Rory Gallagher. He was active from the mid/late 60s to the early 90s, before dying prematurely. He had a raw approach to music and, in the 70s, he said in interview that he thought anyone who had their act together should be able to put everything down on at most 8 tracks but preferably 4. Given his approach I believe him but I don't think he ever achieved it. Jack White strikes me as a modern-day similar-sort-of-guy. Pink Floyd could have never achieved what they did "at home with Teac".
 
Last edited:
fortycoats said:
I don't want to contradict anyone here, especially since I'm no recording engineeer, but I believe that Dolby-A was pretty common in professional situations 'back in the day'. Dolby-A never made it into consumer use (and, for all I know, might not even have been called that until consumer-type "B" came along).

Whatever about 30 ips (I've heard it didn't become common until the late 70s/early 80s but, again, I'm no recording engineer and don't-want-to/will-not-knowingly contradict others in this regard), even if they were using slower speeds, they almost certainly had more tracks than 4. The Teac A-3340 (and its successor, the A-3440, which is the deck I have) was primarily intended for use by musicians wishing to record 'ideas' at home, on a budget. It was the first 'home studio', if you will, but was not intended to be a replacement for real studio machines. As I think I explained previously, more tracks are better and one of the benefits of that is less noise. If you have, say, 12 parts to record and you have a 16-track recorder, you can record all of those parts at 1st generation. You can also then do the stereo mix-down with complete control over the relative levels of every individual track.

There were/are many formats in tape recording. Tape width is one factor and number of tracks is another. The machine you have uses 1/4 inch (wide) tape and puts 4 tracks on that. In studios, there were/are 1/2 inch tapes with 8 tracks, 1 inch tapes with 16 tracks and 2 inch tapes with 24 and 32 tracks. Stereo mix-down might typically have used 1/4 inch tape with only 2 tracks and some people now reckon (eg. ATR, one of the only remaining manufacturers of R2R tape) that the best quality possible is obtainable from 1 inch tape with 2 tracks. The number of tracks depends entirely on the construction of the record/playback heads, as I'm sure you have figured out, and less tracks means more tape width per track, which is better (to a point) in terms of sound quality.

One of my favourite musicians (to have ever graced the planet) was an Irish guitarist by the name of Rory Gallagher. He was active from the mid/late 60s to the early 90s, before dying prematurely. He had a raw approach to music and, in the 70s, he said in interview that he thought anyone who had their act together should be able to put everything down on at most 8 tracks but preferably 4. Given his approach I believe him but I don't think he ever achieved it. Jack White strikes me as a modern-day similar-sort-of-guy. Pink Floyd could have never achieved what they did "at home with Teac".
Click to expand...



Thats interesting...

I was just playing Rory's Moonchild today on guitar

What a great happening guitar riff that is.

He minimized the guitar tracks by playing the harmony part at the same time as the standard part.

I like the simultaneous playing but I think the two tracks at different times sound, it just adds a better sound to the harmony.
But, simul. works well at certain times such as Rory's riff.

Sorry to ramble.


I was reading the manual to the A-3340S and in the overview on the first page it says that you can record up to 8 tracks with the mic and the line controls.

thnx again,
Thomas Wright
 
And remember folks that most of the Beatles stuff got recorded with 2 or 4 trackers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles'_recording_technology

Sometimes being limited with track count can feed creative mind effectively, eh?

Where do we need all these 100+ tracks nowadays? IMO simplicity and thinking from the grass root level is the foundation for creating hefty sounds.


Taneli
Record Engineer

ps. Pink Floyd used 16 tracker(dolby a?) for Dark Side of the Moon

http://www.superseventies.com/pinkfloyd2.html

The album was made during the summer of 1972, at a time of rapid technological change. It was recorded on 16-track equipment at Abbey Road, with the new Dolby noise reduction system being adopted halfway through the sessions. A decision was taken not to do a quadrophonic mix, although that ill-fated system was just beginning to appear on the domestic market. EMI went ahead anyway and commisioned a quad mix from then-engineer Alan Parsons, which the record company played at a press conference held at the Planetarium to launch the album. The group did not approve and boycotted the event, their place being taken by life-size cardboard cut-outs. As was the practice in those days, the Floyd maintained a steady gigging schedule throughout the period of the recordings, but Dark Side Of The Moon was the first album which the band had both written and toured before going into the studio.
 
randyrhoads1 said:
I was reading the manual to the A-3340S and in the overview on the first page it says that you can record up to 8 tracks with the mic and the line controls.
Click to expand...

If that's what it says, it's badly worded. You can plug 8 sources into it -- 1 Mic and 1 Line into each of the 4 channels. You can only use either the Mic or the Line on each channel, not both at the same time. That's the case with the A-3440 anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom