ebartlet
Well-known member
I have been thinking about coverting an old cassete deck into a tape loop echo. Has anyone here done this before?
DIY tape echo?
- Thread starter ebartlet
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
G
Guest
Guest
Haven't modded one for it, but a stock tascam 122 makes a good slap machine. You can use the pitch control to change the delay time, switch the dolby in to roll off high end on the delay(more than it already is, anyway), and you could probably find one for pretty cheap on ebay or something. We sold a couple not too long ago but I can't remember how much they went for. I think it was somewhere in the ballpark of $150-200. Might just be easier than modding a deck.
Zach
Zach
ebartlet
Well-known member
I have an old kenwood dual cassette unit. I am thinking of just using the transports. I am still trying to figure an easy way to route tape and be able to have an adjustable delay. Of course I would have to build record/playback amps and a bias oscillator.
G
Guest
Guest
You'll need to find a way to varispeed the unit. I don't really have the depth of knowledge to suggest a proper circuit for you, but that would give you the ability to vary the delay time(and I'm sure someone will be along to offer a proper solution for doing so).
Are there any working reel-to-reel decks left?
You get a short, like 1/2-1/4 second, delay, with any 3-head deck.
For many-second delays, we'd use two decks. Record on one, thread the tape a few feet into the second deck, which played back. I have done that with a tape loop, but this is really easier with a reel, though you have to stop and re-wind or swap-reels every 45 minutes. I have done this with 40 feet between decks. In live concert! Yes, the music went through a whole verse and then came back from tape. Inneresting concept, nerve-wracking performance.
On some decks, the record and play heads were near-enough the same that you could swap the wires so it worked play--record. Use a tape loop the desired length: it records, goes around the loop, and plays. Usually we didn't try to erase: recording-over reduces the first sound so you have a decaying sequence, a useful effect. Put heavy cardboard over the erase head. (Don't disconnect it: bias oscillator goes crazy.)
But I thought the Eventide Harmonizer and its ilk were supposed to eliminate these awkward tricks? I can get hours of fine music on a cheap USB dongle or iPod clone, isn't there a long cheap digi-delay? One that does not sound like Scotch 156?
I would never re-invent tape electronics if I could steal them. Swap the wires around, don't build new.
You get a short, like 1/2-1/4 second, delay, with any 3-head deck.
For many-second delays, we'd use two decks. Record on one, thread the tape a few feet into the second deck, which played back. I have done that with a tape loop, but this is really easier with a reel, though you have to stop and re-wind or swap-reels every 45 minutes. I have done this with 40 feet between decks. In live concert! Yes, the music went through a whole verse and then came back from tape. Inneresting concept, nerve-wracking performance.
On some decks, the record and play heads were near-enough the same that you could swap the wires so it worked play--record. Use a tape loop the desired length: it records, goes around the loop, and plays. Usually we didn't try to erase: recording-over reduces the first sound so you have a decaying sequence, a useful effect. Put heavy cardboard over the erase head. (Don't disconnect it: bias oscillator goes crazy.)
But I thought the Eventide Harmonizer and its ilk were supposed to eliminate these awkward tricks? I can get hours of fine music on a cheap USB dongle or iPod clone, isn't there a long cheap digi-delay? One that does not sound like Scotch 156?
I would never re-invent tape electronics if I could steal them. Swap the wires around, don't build new.
ebartlet
Well-known member
[quote author="PRR"]
On some decks, the record and play heads were near-enough the same that you could swap the wires so it worked play--record. Use a tape loop the desired length: it records, goes around the loop, and plays. [/quote]
I think I this idea the best. I'm sick of my dependance on a computer and this may be one more way to be independant (almost there!). Of course I'm sure there is some newer outboard that can do this so we'll see whats avaliable and affordable.
Thanks PRR for the insight!
On some decks, the record and play heads were near-enough the same that you could swap the wires so it worked play--record. Use a tape loop the desired length: it records, goes around the loop, and plays. [/quote]
I think I this idea the best. I'm sick of my dependance on a computer and this may be one more way to be independant (almost there!). Of course I'm sure there is some newer outboard that can do this so we'll see whats avaliable and affordable.
Thanks PRR for the insight!
NewYorkDave
Well-known member
Extra points if you've already heard of "musique concrete"... :wink:
NewYorkDave
Well-known member
This is off-topic, I know, but an interesting thought just occurred to me...
Have you noticed that many people who did things the "old school" way back when it was the only way seem to have no desire to go back to the old equipment and techniques? For my part, I haven't met anyone lately over the age of 40 who records to tape or has any interest in doing so. Most people who were working in the biz back when tape was the only game in town have memories of tedious hours spent with the blade and editing block, tape spills and broken tapes, hours spent cleaning and degaussing heads and aligning tape machines, fighting the Sisyphean battle against tape noise buildup during bounces, reductions and dubs...
Not many of these older guys talk about missing the "warmth"; rather, they seem to have this attitude of "thank God we don't have to deal with THAT anymore." Meanwhile, younger guys who have grown up with computer-based recording have a very romantic conception of how things must have been in the "old days." Naively perhaps, many seek the panacea of a tube, a transformer or a little tape in the signal path to recapture the lost magic of yesterday's recordings.
It's kind of like when I was first coming up in electronics. I thought tubes were the ultimate for audio--and I still do. But all the older guys I met, guys who had used, built and even designed with tubes back in the "golden age", dismissed such notions with a wave of the hand. "Tubes are dead", they'd say. "Why on earth would you want to use them nowadays, when we have transistors?" :wink:
Have you noticed that many people who did things the "old school" way back when it was the only way seem to have no desire to go back to the old equipment and techniques? For my part, I haven't met anyone lately over the age of 40 who records to tape or has any interest in doing so. Most people who were working in the biz back when tape was the only game in town have memories of tedious hours spent with the blade and editing block, tape spills and broken tapes, hours spent cleaning and degaussing heads and aligning tape machines, fighting the Sisyphean battle against tape noise buildup during bounces, reductions and dubs...
Not many of these older guys talk about missing the "warmth"; rather, they seem to have this attitude of "thank God we don't have to deal with THAT anymore." Meanwhile, younger guys who have grown up with computer-based recording have a very romantic conception of how things must have been in the "old days." Naively perhaps, many seek the panacea of a tube, a transformer or a little tape in the signal path to recapture the lost magic of yesterday's recordings.
It's kind of like when I was first coming up in electronics. I thought tubes were the ultimate for audio--and I still do. But all the older guys I met, guys who had used, built and even designed with tubes back in the "golden age", dismissed such notions with a wave of the hand. "Tubes are dead", they'd say. "Why on earth would you want to use them nowadays, when we have transistors?" :wink:
> Extra points if you've already heard of "musique concrete"...
Extra points for not mentioning that crap around me.
"musique concrete": "Music" that, with its composers and fans, should be placed among the re-bar before pouring the concrete for a big bridge.
I'm afraid I've been guilty of tech-helping way too much of that stuff. But hey: a dollar is a dollar.
Extra points for not mentioning that crap around me.
"musique concrete": "Music" that, with its composers and fans, should be placed among the re-bar before pouring the concrete for a big bridge.
I'm afraid I've been guilty of tech-helping way too much of that stuff. But hey: a dollar is a dollar.
CJ
Well-known member
Jeez PRR, 40 feet? How the H did you do that! I wish I could see a pic of that. Did you sync the machines somehow?
ebartlet
Well-known member
[quote author="NewYorkDave"]This is off-topic, I know, but an interesting thought just occurred to me...
Have you noticed that many people who did things the "old school" way back when it was the only way seem to have no desire to go back to the old equipment and techniques? For my part, I haven't met anyone lately over the age of 40 who records to tape or has any interest in doing so. Most people who were working in the biz back when tape was the only game in town have memories of tedious hours spent with the blade and editing block, tape spills and broken tapes, hours spent cleaning and degaussing heads and aligning tape machines, fighting the Sisyphean battle against tape noise buildup during bounces, reductions and dubs...
Not many of these older guys talk about missing the "warmth"; rather, they seem to have this attitude of "thank God we don't have to deal with THAT anymore." Meanwhile, younger guys who have grown up with computer-based recording have a very romantic conception of how things must have been in the "old days." Naively perhaps, many seek the panacea of a tube, a transformer or a little tape in the signal path to recapture the lost magic of yesterday's recordings.
It's kind of like when I was first coming up in electronics. I thought tubes were the ultimate for audio--and I still do. But all the older guys I met, guys who had used, built and even designed with tubes back in the "golden age", dismissed such notions with a wave of the hand. "Tubes are dead", they'd say. "Why on earth would you want to use them nowadays, when we have transistors?" :wink:[/quote]
I have noticed (even been apart of )the same phenomena, especially being one who came up through recording using a computer. The more I have studied the recordings I like, I think I have finaly come to a correct conclusion about what makes a good record sound good (despite gear manufacturers and recording magazines telling us we this that and the other thing).
Its the band and their instruments! The gear used did impart its own color on the sound, but a great recording is 95% the music. It seems like what is considered that vintage sound may be more of the fact that bands were well rehearsed, played together and didn't time align/cut n paste everything using Alishad. Sonicaly the old stuff does sound different. Worse actually, but the bands had such a great thing going on that our minds ignore the lack of fidelity and really get into the music. Which brings up another thought. I generally prefer old B&W films without all the special efx. Sure some of the props were less realistic, but your caught up with the story and your mind tunes out the fact that the props are cheesy and the film is in black and white. Special efx today are on the verge of realism, but my mind notices that the sp. efx aren't 100% realistic and it stands out more to me than in older films. Maybe thats another reason we think we like vintage is because music back then wasn't overproduced, made perfect, and filled out with sound efx. Another reason we may think we like "vintage" is the recording techniques that were used when the said "vintage" gear was new. In many ways I think that they were truer to the sound of listening to a band play together in a room (except for those mono L-C-R recordings... the still sound cool anyway). The sound of snares and toms at 3" doesn't sound as real as being in the same room as the kit. For one, those are very dry sounds, but also air and distance tend to smooth transients. Now I wouldn't say that it is wrong to use these modern techniques, its all art and there are different kinds of art that require different tools and techniques, but perhaps when we think we want "vintage" sound, maybe its not as much gear as it is performance and micing techniques.
Don't get me wrong, I love vintage stuff, but I wish someone would have clued me in a few years ago to what I am finaly figuring out now.
I still would like to but less dependant on computers. Using the computer for recording and processing has forced me to learn things I am not interested in. Computers are high maintance (And have caused me a great deal of stress with a band in the studio). Old gear can be too, but at least I am interested in it...
Phewww, thats a mouthful. I had to get it off my chest, and my wife wouldn't understand. :wink:
Have you noticed that many people who did things the "old school" way back when it was the only way seem to have no desire to go back to the old equipment and techniques? For my part, I haven't met anyone lately over the age of 40 who records to tape or has any interest in doing so. Most people who were working in the biz back when tape was the only game in town have memories of tedious hours spent with the blade and editing block, tape spills and broken tapes, hours spent cleaning and degaussing heads and aligning tape machines, fighting the Sisyphean battle against tape noise buildup during bounces, reductions and dubs...
Not many of these older guys talk about missing the "warmth"; rather, they seem to have this attitude of "thank God we don't have to deal with THAT anymore." Meanwhile, younger guys who have grown up with computer-based recording have a very romantic conception of how things must have been in the "old days." Naively perhaps, many seek the panacea of a tube, a transformer or a little tape in the signal path to recapture the lost magic of yesterday's recordings.
It's kind of like when I was first coming up in electronics. I thought tubes were the ultimate for audio--and I still do. But all the older guys I met, guys who had used, built and even designed with tubes back in the "golden age", dismissed such notions with a wave of the hand. "Tubes are dead", they'd say. "Why on earth would you want to use them nowadays, when we have transistors?" :wink:[/quote]
I have noticed (even been apart of )the same phenomena, especially being one who came up through recording using a computer. The more I have studied the recordings I like, I think I have finaly come to a correct conclusion about what makes a good record sound good (despite gear manufacturers and recording magazines telling us we this that and the other thing).
Its the band and their instruments! The gear used did impart its own color on the sound, but a great recording is 95% the music. It seems like what is considered that vintage sound may be more of the fact that bands were well rehearsed, played together and didn't time align/cut n paste everything using Alishad. Sonicaly the old stuff does sound different. Worse actually, but the bands had such a great thing going on that our minds ignore the lack of fidelity and really get into the music. Which brings up another thought. I generally prefer old B&W films without all the special efx. Sure some of the props were less realistic, but your caught up with the story and your mind tunes out the fact that the props are cheesy and the film is in black and white. Special efx today are on the verge of realism, but my mind notices that the sp. efx aren't 100% realistic and it stands out more to me than in older films. Maybe thats another reason we think we like vintage is because music back then wasn't overproduced, made perfect, and filled out with sound efx. Another reason we may think we like "vintage" is the recording techniques that were used when the said "vintage" gear was new. In many ways I think that they were truer to the sound of listening to a band play together in a room (except for those mono L-C-R recordings... the still sound cool anyway). The sound of snares and toms at 3" doesn't sound as real as being in the same room as the kit. For one, those are very dry sounds, but also air and distance tend to smooth transients. Now I wouldn't say that it is wrong to use these modern techniques, its all art and there are different kinds of art that require different tools and techniques, but perhaps when we think we want "vintage" sound, maybe its not as much gear as it is performance and micing techniques.
Don't get me wrong, I love vintage stuff, but I wish someone would have clued me in a few years ago to what I am finaly figuring out now.
I still would like to but less dependant on computers. Using the computer for recording and processing has forced me to learn things I am not interested in. Computers are high maintance (And have caused me a great deal of stress with a band in the studio). Old gear can be too, but at least I am interested in it...
Phewww, thats a mouthful. I had to get it off my chest, and my wife wouldn't understand. :wink:
Sleeper
Well-known member
This is a tube echoplex repro. Aren't those like 1200us. You will find one on ebay for 2-300 if you're patient. I got one that wasn't working for around 100. replaced a transistor and a few caps and it's getting a lot of use around here.
I'd think anyone who made it this far should be able to fix up an old echoplex to work just as well. There is something very nice about the echoplex interface, moving the lever/tape head lets you find and HEAR the music thats in the repeat rhythms in a way that just doesn't happen on the computer fx, mostly because the designers have dumbed down the controls and put that auto tempo matching crap on the first level. Even when you turn that off, it just ain't the same, makes my ears hz.
For the really long loops you can do it with a couple of reel to reels like PRR says. make a tape loop as long as you like (you can do some math to figure out how long ( but I always just guessed and then trimmed...) doesn't i.p.s. stand for inches per second?
put the decks close to a wall and drive a few screws with stand offs (or something so the threads don't bite your tape) in until you've made a proper tape transport.
I know when I first got on the computer with all the tempo matching and editing available I made the worst music I've ever done... too much fiddling will kill just about anything. Take it from someone with a garden.
Sleeper
I'd think anyone who made it this far should be able to fix up an old echoplex to work just as well. There is something very nice about the echoplex interface, moving the lever/tape head lets you find and HEAR the music thats in the repeat rhythms in a way that just doesn't happen on the computer fx, mostly because the designers have dumbed down the controls and put that auto tempo matching crap on the first level. Even when you turn that off, it just ain't the same, makes my ears hz.
For the really long loops you can do it with a couple of reel to reels like PRR says. make a tape loop as long as you like (you can do some math to figure out how long ( but I always just guessed and then trimmed...) doesn't i.p.s. stand for inches per second?
put the decks close to a wall and drive a few screws with stand offs (or something so the threads don't bite your tape) in until you've made a proper tape transport.
I know when I first got on the computer with all the tempo matching and editing available I made the worst music I've ever done... too much fiddling will kill just about anything. Take it from someone with a garden.
Sleeper
moosapotamus
Well-known member
FWIW - here's an old article I scanned with a little circuit that, apparently, makes a 3-head tape deck act like an echo-plex.
Echo-Matic page 1
Echo-Matic page 2
... haven't tried it. So, don't know how it works/sounds. Looks interesting and easy enough, tho.
~ Charlie
Echo-Matic page 1
Echo-Matic page 2
... haven't tried it. So, don't know how it works/sounds. Looks interesting and easy enough, tho.
~ Charlie
Mark Burnley
Well-known member
Hi,
That circuit is just a basic mixer and bypass circuit. The three pots adjust the main parameters- Volume (overall output level from effect), Mix (level between original and delayedsignal) and Repeat (amount of regeneration- sending delayed signal back into tape machine to allow feedback of already delayed signal). But no matter what you'll need a 3-head machine that allows you to monitor off-tape whilst recording.
This can all be done with a 3-head open reel or cassette machine, and any mixer with an aux send.
Take the output of the Aux bus to the Input of the tape machine. Take the output of the tape machine to it's own line-in channel on the mixer. Make sure that the tape machine is set to "tape monitor" so that the output is from tape rather than source. Then, connect the sound you need to add echo/delay to a spare mixer channel. Set the aux send level of this channel to send a good level to tape (you'll need to adjust the individual aux-send levels, the master aux-send level, and the tape machines input level control to get a good gain structure)
As you bring up the tape-return channel on the mixer, you'll hear the delayed sound. By then adjusting the tape return channels aux-send, you'll be able to adjust the Repeat level- careful- it can go into total monitor-blowing feedback here! Bringing it back to a separate channel allows you to EQ the return too. A cool thing to do is to "play" the feedback with EQ- sweep the mid as you vary the feedback level- classic "dub" style delays. A bit of panning original><delayed works a treat too.
:thumb:
Mark
That circuit is just a basic mixer and bypass circuit. The three pots adjust the main parameters- Volume (overall output level from effect), Mix (level between original and delayedsignal) and Repeat (amount of regeneration- sending delayed signal back into tape machine to allow feedback of already delayed signal). But no matter what you'll need a 3-head machine that allows you to monitor off-tape whilst recording.
This can all be done with a 3-head open reel or cassette machine, and any mixer with an aux send.
Take the output of the Aux bus to the Input of the tape machine. Take the output of the tape machine to it's own line-in channel on the mixer. Make sure that the tape machine is set to "tape monitor" so that the output is from tape rather than source. Then, connect the sound you need to add echo/delay to a spare mixer channel. Set the aux send level of this channel to send a good level to tape (you'll need to adjust the individual aux-send levels, the master aux-send level, and the tape machines input level control to get a good gain structure)
As you bring up the tape-return channel on the mixer, you'll hear the delayed sound. By then adjusting the tape return channels aux-send, you'll be able to adjust the Repeat level- careful- it can go into total monitor-blowing feedback here! Bringing it back to a separate channel allows you to EQ the return too. A cool thing to do is to "play" the feedback with EQ- sweep the mid as you vary the feedback level- classic "dub" style delays. A bit of panning original><delayed works a treat too.
:thumb:
Mark
