DOWNLOAD: Fostex_Comps_1981

I’d get carpal tunnel syndrome re-typing every model # in this thing, but trust me there’s a lot of info here…  of use to whom, that’s another question i suppose.

DOWNLOAD: Fostex_SR_1981

Featuring: Fostex speaker systems GS3001, GS3003, SV22, SV30, BS1502, G700, SP104F, SP102, SP109, SP89, SP109F, SP109, SP104, SP82S, SP84S, and many more enclosures.  I can’t recall ever having seen ANY of these; were they even sold in the US?

DOWNLOAD: Fostex_Lab_1980

Featuring the Fostex LS/2, LS/3, and the massive LS/4: 458lbs each, with response down to 19hz.  Good lord. BTW  I have come across several period FOSTEX speaker pieces; expect more in the next few days…

*************

*******

***

Update 12.10.13:

Michael Gillespie, designer of the Fostex Laboratory Series, got in touch with PS dot com regarding these speakers.  Here’s what he had to say:

“I designed these speakers in the late seventies. This was the inaugural Fostex product to launch in North America, setting the stage for huge success. At the time we did this, Fostex had 18 employees in Japan; today they have 67,000 worldwide.”

Click here for a better copy of the main brochure.

“Above are images of the “V” series; these were the same systems re-tuned for free-standing (full-space 4π) operation as opposed to the main brochure which shows soffit-mounted (half-space 2π) models.”

“Above is the the original development team, reunited in 2012: (L-R) Ted Telesky, Michael Gillespie, Bob Oliver.“

“And above is an – LS/4 is one of my personal pair  – which I have owned for almost 35 years.”

]]> https://www.preservationsound.com/fostex-laboratory-series-pro-audio-monitors-c-1980/feed/ 3 https://www.preservationsound.com/fostex-creative-sound-systems-1981-full-catalog/ https://www.preservationsound.com/fostex-creative-sound-systems-1981-full-catalog/#comments Fri, 06 Sep 2013 11:15:36 +0000 http://www.preservationsound.com/?p=7060 Download the complete 12pp Fostex “Creative Sound Systems” 1981 (???) catalog:

DOWNLOAD: Fostex_1981_Catalog

Models covered in great detail include: Fostex A-8, A-4, A-2 1/4″ tape machines; Fostex 250 cassette four-track; and the Fostex 350 8x4x2 mixer.

Interesting feature on the 350 – and something that’s not at all obvious from the top surface – it has 2 stereo RIAA phono preamps which are patchable on the rear of the unit, presumably to whichever inputs or external gear you like.

I’ve uploaded a ton of information on these machines before (see here, here, and here), so dig back if you want more commentary…  otherwise i’ll let the catalog speak for itself…

DOWNLOAD: fostex_mics_1980

Models covered, with text, specs, and photos, include: Fostex M85RP, M88RP, M80RP, M77RP, and M55RP.

These mics, like the Fostex RP headphones, use a unique method of transduction that combines elements of dynamic, ribbon, and condenser-mic design.  I’m not 100% sure why they are termed ‘regular phase,’ but I suspect that it might be because the design works without any driver suspension.  You may not have realized before, but consider a generic woofer, and the acordian folds in the suspension:  at any moment of driver excursion, portions of the suspension will necessarily be moving out-of-phase with the cone.  This is a significant cause of transducer distortion.  By eliminating the suspension, that particular distortion factor is eliminated.  Here’s a cutaway of the Fostex design:

I’ve seen a few of these things on eBay from time to time, generally from ex-US sellers, and I’ve never seen one in the flesh, so I imagine that they are pretty rare in the US.  The catalog that I’ve scanned above was actually printed in Canada, so I can’t even say for sure if these were sold in the US.  I am super-curious, though, as I have always really loved the Fostex RP headphone line (I own a pair of T50, a pair of T40, and several pairs of T20s), and I’ve also had good luck with the classic Fostex full-range Banana Cone hi-fi drivers, so these mics seem like something I might dig.  Anyone?

How y’all doing today…  srry for the lack of recent posts; been working on some pretty exciting new projects here at PS dot com that we hope to unveil soon.  In the meanwhile: a tip:  people often ask me for speaker recommendations, and for many years now I’ve been reco’ing the Yamaha HS50s.  I bought mine at Sam Ash maybe 5 years ago for $300/pair, which seemed like a bargain at the time.  Well now the price has dropped, likely in advance of a phase-out.  The HS50 is a powered speaker with balanced inputs, dunno how much power but more than enough for working at home, trust me.  Now, you can spend a lot more on speakers, but when yr gonna stick them on a desk, right next to a big ole LCD display, in some untreated spare bedroom: why would you?  I’ve worked on literally hundreds of spots, jingles, and film and TV tracks on these suckers and I’ve never been disappointed.  At the studio we have (along with Tannoys and Avantones) a Blue Sky speaker rig that cost about 10x as much, and yeah it sounds better.  But… it’s also in a properly-dimensioned room with a shit-tonne of acoustic-control devices that cost a fortune in parts and time to build.  Unless you take the time to really treat your listening environment, I am not convinced that you need much better desktop speakers than the HS50s.

BTW – I reco these not just for musicians/engineers, but for anyone who needs good small speakers for listening to anything – TV, music, etc.  Small, well-made, reliable, accurate sound.

Yamaha HS50s – $129/ea at MF dot com.

DOWNLOAD: Fostex_A_range_1981

DOWNLOAD: 4trackMusic_JohnPeel

Includes advertisements for Yamaha MT2X, DX100, and RX17 drum machine; Akai MG614 four-track machine, Tascam Porta2 4-track, Fostex 160, the Boss Micro-Rack series (RDD-20 delay, RPS-10 pitch shifter, RCL-10 compressor, RRV-10 reverb, plus a ton more), and KORG’s multieffects.

*************

*******

***

First-things-first: I have no idea if the ‘John Peel’ to whom this book is credited is the John Peel, he of legendary status as a DJ and taste-maker for an entire generation of rock and pop music.  There is nothing whatsoever in this 98pp paperback volume (found in a Manchester OXFAM back in the early 00’s)  that offers any indication pro or con.  A third option would seem to be the ghostwriter scenario.  Anyhow.  “Making 4-Track Music” (h.f. “M4TM”) is an A5-sized paperback that attempts to introduce readers to the equipment and processes of using 4-track recorders.

The 4-track recorder, for those unfamiliar, is a category of product first introduced by the TASCAM corporation in 1979 with their model 144.

The 1979 TASCAM 144.  Bruce Springsteen recorded his greatest album on this small plastic machine, believe-it-or-not.  (Image source)

TASCAM already dominated the home-recording market with their 3440 1/4″ open reel tape recorder and the associated mixer-units that were marketed alongside it.   These systems had a rather high cost of entry, though: they cost much more than a good used car.  The 144 brought the basic concept of multi-track audio recording and mixing to a far lower price-point by using consumer cassette tape rather than 1/4″ open reel tape as the recording media, and by combining the audio-recording device and the audio-mixing apparatus into one single item.  This made for a much more affordable system and it also made for easier use: no wires to hook up, no redundant or unnecessary features.  Just the basic technology needed to record a performance and then add 3 additional performances in perfect synchronization while retaining the ability to control relative volumes and treatments of each track.   With a creative user, the 4-track machine is capable of much more, but this is the basic concept.

“M4TM” covers all of this, and more; there is an explanation of the various recording and mixing features that the consumer would encounter in the marketplace, plus good treatment of the various types of additional processing equipment that a 4-track owner might like: digital time-based effects (delay, etc), compressors, gates, EQs., etc.

The aesthetics/art of making recordings is not really considered at all; there is a lot of talk about money, costs, (e.g., KORG’s above-depicted rainmaking) and the improved ‘recording quality’ that such expenditures can deliver but no mention of improving the presentation of songs and sonic ideas via any of this technology.  Here’s a typical passage:

************

As someone who’s work is largely based on the commercial recording studio that I own and operate, I find it rather… alarming/offensive that the prime benefit of making a recording in a pro studio is the sound-quality, to extent that this benefit could be completely undone by several generations of tape-duplication.  Jesus.  I like to hope that I give my clients something more than a good signal-noise ratio and even frequency response.  The passage above kind of makes it seem like it’s the EQUIPMENT in a studio that is doing the work, rather than the engineer…   is this how most musicians feel about studios?  Is this how I used to feel about studios, when I was 4-tracking at home at age 19?

(me at home, age 19: via Tascam Porta 03, Boss Micro -Rack effects): 07 The End

Furthermore, M4TM does not even entertain the aesthetic or artistic possibilities of all of this ‘4-track’ equipment.  Rather, the emphasis is very much on ‘making-a-demo’ en route to possibly getting a ‘record deal,’ and all that this will entail (presumably the “Riches and Fame” for which you will have KORG to thank).   The idea of possibly creating a compelling piece of artwork with this equipment is simply absent.

I wonder when this changed.  By the time I started recording heavily on a four 4-track machine, a mere 8 years later (1995), musicians like Bill Callahan (aka SMOG) and Jeff Mangum (aka Neutral Milk Hotel) were already getting attention specifically as masters of 4-track recording.  These guys did not appear too interested in making a ‘real record’ in a ‘pro studio.’  The 4-track medium, with its attendant tape hiss, awkward usage once you went past four tracks, and total absence of any sort of editing ability, was a huge part of the artwork that they created.  Artwork that has truly endured.

(image source)

I went to see Jeff Mangum perform last week here in CT.  He did a solo set at the Shubert Theatre in New Haven.    Jeff Mangum has not released a major album of his own in 13 years.  The Shubert was nearly sold-out to it’s 1591 capacity.

(image source)

Have a listen (above) to “Naomi” from Neutral Milk Hotel’s 1996 4-track masterpiece “On Avery Island.”  Would these songs have been rendered any more compelling had they been tracked and mixed in a studio?  I think we all know the answer to that…  Ultimately, though, what Mangum’s solo-acoustic-gtr-and-voice performance at the Shubert last week demonstrated to me was more the fact that it probably honestly didn’t matter how he had made those seminal recordings: the songs themselves are so good and his voice and affect are so well-wrought that their properties can impress regardless of the presentation.

Perhaps I am reading into this all too much…perhaps my ideas and taste are a bit ‘off’ and therefore I have ‘niche’ values.  Mangum seems, to me, to be a very straightforward singer/songwriter.. but perhaps my appreciation for artists like Jeff Mangum simply indicates that I have ‘weird’ taste, that I am out-of-step with ‘mainstream’ values…  Goggle seems to think so.   Here’s what you will see if you play a Neutral Milk Hotel song on Youtube:

Is your significant-other cheating on you?  Maybe you need to lose those glasses: improve yr appeal?  Fuck it, man, you’re a GEEK.  Face it.  Geek geek geek.  Date another geek.

I am so confused.

1987/2012:  Maybe our John Peel simply wrote “M4TM” in a lost era, simple as that… an era when there still was a vigorous economic basis for the music-recording-industry and therefore the idea of recording music as INDUSTRY rather than EXPLOIT was still the dominant theme.   It’s also interesting to consider that around the time of the first Neutral Milk Hotel album we also saw the introduction of Tape Op magazine, the first (that I am aware of…) widely-distributed publication that embraced the ethos of home-recording as a serious art form.   And all of this happened just-in-time for the introduction of the first affordable DAWs (e.g., Pro Tools LE), which completely changed both the technique and the aesthetics of audio recording forever.  You still need to be able to write a good song though.  That much hasn’t changed.

 Previous 4-track coverage on PS dot com:

Fostex recorders of the 1980s

Musician Magazine 1976-1999

]]> https://www.preservationsound.com/out-of-print-book-report-making-4-track-music-john-peel-track-pub-1987/feed/ 14 https://www.preservationsound.com/low-budget-ribbon-mic-listening-session/ https://www.preservationsound.com/low-budget-ribbon-mic-listening-session/#comments Thu, 05 Jan 2012 06:04:29 +0000 http://www.preservationsound.com/?p=3799 In several of my previous posts I have expressed my love for the humble Ribbon Microphone.  Ribbon mics were invented in the early 1920s and they have remained pretty much the same in the majority of cases.  They remain one of the simplest ways that sound pressure can be reliably changed to an electrical signal.  When I started recording music in the early 90s, ribbon mics were not very popular.  Classic models like the RCA 44 and RCA 77 were still often used in major studios, but home recordists and smaller studios with some budget were much more likely to use Neumann and AKG condensers and the classic Shure and Sennheiser dynamic mics.   Aside from the Beyerdynamic ribbons (and the elusive Fostex ribbons) there just weren’t any new ribbon mics readily available.  At some point in the early 2000s this situation changed dramatically and there are now a good variety of new ribbon mics available at all points in the pricing spectrum, from $60 up to several thousands dollars.  I regularly use a variety of mid-and-upper-range ribbons in the studio, and I have also found myself in possession of a few of the cheap ‘budget’ ribbons currently on the market.  In this previous post, I went so far as to replace the output transformer in the $69 MXL R40 with a better ($23) transformer and the results seemed promising.  Anyways…  seemed like it might be a good idea to do a quick test and find out just how the el-cheapo ribbon mics compare with a thousand-dollar unit.  Cos you never know until you try…

In the image above, you can see (CW from upper left): the $1,300 Royer 121, the $59 Nady RSM-4 (n.b.: now $79), the $92 MXL R40 ($69+ $23 for an EDCOR output transformer) and the $220 Shinybox 2.   We set up all four mics on shockmounts in a cluster about 8 feet in front of a drum kit at Gold Coast Recorders.  The kit was a sixites Ludwig 22/16/12 with a 14×5 wood snare; cymbals are dark sixties Zildjians and the heads on the drums were all fresh.

Above: preamp gains required to deliver equal levels off each of the four mics:  Royer is at 6.5, Fathead II is at 7, MXL is at 6, and Nady is at 7.

Each mic went direct into an identical Sytek mic preamp and then right into the Lynx Aurora convertor.  No other processing was used.  Mic preamp gains were set to show the same level in pro tools.  Tim Walsh, a fine drummer and recordist, delivered a compelling drum performance and then we listened to the results.   This is obviously not a scientific test, and you might not even be personally inclined to use a mono ribbon mic as a front mic on a drum kit; that being said, a drum kit produces the most dynamic range and the greatest range of frequencies of any instrument, so it seems like a good way to get a quick handle on what one mic sounds like versus another mic.

Here are the audio files.  They are MP3s, but you can still get a pretty good sense of the sound.  Try to listen with good headphones or a system with real low-end; you will hear tremendous differences.

Royer 121: Royer_121

Fathead II:Fathead_II

MXL R40 with EDCOR Transformer: MXL_R40_w_edcorTrans

Nady RSM4: Nady_RSM4

Out thoughts were as follows:

Royer 121: Sound is tight.  Low end seems understated.  The kick drum barely activated the sub in the GCR control room.  Seems like some low end is not being reproduced.  On the plus side, this mic brought out the body of the snare best.  The snare felt much more three-dimensional.  There was a good overall balance of kick, snare and hat.  The noise floor was very low, barely over the noise floor of the (very quiet) preamp and convertor.

Fathead II: HUGE sub-bass.  Exaggerated, in fact.  The low end that you hear here was not present in the room when we made this recording. That being said, it sounded good.   Somehow this mic is adding a ton of very low end.  The high end is also slightly hyped – the cymbals have more shimmer.  The snare seems to have no body – the snares themselves are prominent but the tone of the shell is missing.  The toms sound much more prominent and present with this mic.  Noise-wise, it is pretty quiet, although there is a very very slight hum – sounds like 60hz.

MXL R40 w/ EDCOR transformer: Much more bass response than the Royer, although this sub-bass is deeper in pitch and less prominent in level than the Fathead II produced.  The kick feels very present and in-your-face; the rest of the kit feels like it’s on a slightly different plane further back.  Noise-wise this mic was the best: it is absolutely dead quiet.

Nady RSM4: This seemed to split the difference between the Royer and the MXL.  The Nady puts the cymbals much more forward then the other mics.  Noise-wise this mic was by far the worst, with a prominent 180 hz hum present.

Listen closely and draw your own conclusions.  My takeaway: the modded MXL R40 is gaining a permanent place in the studio mic locker, along side ribbons costing as much as 20x its modest price.  And I am not going to be putting the Royer on any source that needs to deliver real low-end in a mix.

You can buy all of these mics online at a variety of retailers.  I purchased my Royer at Vintage King, the Fathead II came from Sonic Circus, the Nady and the MXL were both purchased from Musician’s Friend.  FYI I have no idea if these places offer the lowest price or not.

DOWNLOAD: Fostex_Outboard_Gear_1986

Included in this download:  “Echo Buss Vol II, Take 1,” a FOSTEX newsletter to pro-sumer users of the 80s.  Plus 2-side product sheets for the 2050 line mixer, 3030 Graphic Equalizer, 3070 Compressor/Limiter, 3180 Reverb, and 6301 powered monitor speakers.

The 3180 offers a unique feature among line-level stereo spring reverb units:  a non-adjustable 24ms pre-delay hardwired before the spring drive amp.

Interesting to note that FOSTEX makes no attempt to disguise these pieces as pro-studio equipment; they were designed and marketed specifically for use in the new ‘personal studio’ of the early 1980s, alongside such other FOSTEX offerings as the personal reel-to-reel multitrack and the FOSTEX 250 cassette four-track.  See previous posts here, here and here for information on these recording devices.

The Fostex 6301 powered monitors did enjoy wider use, though; true to the photo at top, these compact 10w powered speakers did in fact experience wide use in video-facility machine rooms as basic program monitors.  Many are still in use in this role.