inna,
That's what I was thinking. I sent the link to our audio friend 'thuchan' hoping he would be able to find out or maybe has heard something. He regularly attends the Munich high end show.
Studer is in the best position for this I think. As part of of Harman International, they are fully backed finically, and have extensive manufacturing sources of their own. A 'new' Studer or ReVox would be incredible! I would be in line for one for sure.
It would likewise be amazing if NAGRA built a new machine, though I am thinking it would probably be way more expensive then something from ReVox.
Norman |
cleeds -
Yes I see that. But you and I know that product launches are often delayed. Being a Stereophile related link (Analog Planet), I figured there must be some credibility to the source. Still waiting, and wondering if anyone else had heard of anything.
It does seem possible though, and Reel to Reel is now being used quite regularly at CES for some of the finest systems.
Norman |
larryi,
There is actually quite a bit now being offered. United Home Audio has a page with links to many selling quality master copies. A Google search will show you even more. I believe this is just going to grow as it has with LP production and turntable production over the last 15 years or so. That and there are now several companies reconditioning quality machines to like new condition.
Makes me smile.
Norman |
Well J-corder is entitled to his opinion. I used to do studio work I the late 70's early 80's. I've seen Pioneer, Ampex, Sony, Studer, Scully, TEAC, Tascam, Otari and Crown. Most machines were Sony's/MCI mixing down to Studers or Ampex. Older studios were Ampex's and Scully's mixing down to Crown. I've never seen a Technics deck in a professional application ever.
Some Chicago stations used Pioneers, but those and Teacs were the only Prosumer machines I can recall. I think that's crazy money for a Technics.
I agree with inna! I would much rather have a serviced Studer than a modded Technics. But that's just me. I'm sure they are really nice.
The big thing is to get a decent machine so that you can experience the sound and if you shop right it won't break the bank.
N |
Inna,
Ampex made incredible machines. For years they were the defacto studio machines in use. Popularity declined with stiff competition coming from Sony and Studer in the studios. Ampex studio machine were over built, similar to Crown 822's and all Scully machines. Excellent electronis and very flexible. Today they are a coveted by those who have keep them in working order. They are every bit as good as a Studer machine. Now the bad. Parts no longer exist, machines in good working order are extremely difficult to find and they rarely updated their designs so the machines are not as modern or comtemporary as Studer. The last half track Ampex machines were built by Teac/Tascam.
Today, unless one finds one in top condition, purchasing a Studer or an Otari makes much better sense. |
french_fries,
I agree! I see no reason why they can't spool up a 3600' of good back coated tape. If they did, it would take ONE reel at 15ips to get 45 min of music. I tape full LP's all the time on ONE reel in 1/2 track format. Using such a heavy mil and short spool of tape is silly and expensive.
I used to have several 1/4 track tapes that sounded excellent. There is a difference in sound between 1/4 track and 1/2 track, but in some instances it is soooo very close.
N.
|
ct0517, larryi,
I haven't had a problem with any reel to reel machine I've ever owned. I play them regularly and all of them are over 35 years of age. That and a quick Google check shows that here in the Chicago land area there are several quality shops that will do a full service on your machine. I honestly think that with most all machines, parts are still available from some source.
The most common concern is that of head wear. If you're using a Sony, or an Akai (they only made one half track machine) then head wear isn't a concern with their ferrite heads. I was worried about this and bought a couple of NOS head stacks for the Pioneer that I use most. But now after years of use the heads look tremendous. I realize that I am probably never going to wear out the original stack. Maintenance and using quality tape helps a lot in this regard.
If there were NO available master tape copies I would still own a reel to reel machine to tape LP's that I enjoy most. I can edit out the songs I don't like, put them in the order I do like and at then listen for 45 min at at time without having to get up and flip the LP.
larryi, I listen to tapes that I made back in the early 70's. Only those I made using Scotch 206 and Ampex 468 having given me issues. Maxells, BASF, AGFA, Memorex (believe it or not), and TDK's play beautifully without issue.
N.
|
topoxforddoc,
I wasn't aware of that. Very encouraging and that would make complete sense. Let's hope it will be something that is affordable. Fat chance on that last one.. huh?
N. |
Dhl93449,
In a word... No. One must remember that no tape can sound 'better' than the machine it was created on (assuming all is functioning as it should). Any idea how many IC opamps were in the recording chain at the studio? Me neither, but we can safely assume that in most instances there were plenty and yet many treasured recordings were made using them.
For example, I smile a little at those that spend $$$$$ on cables. Yes they can make a difference, but to me it seems that most use them as tone controls.. And yet they never consider the miles and miles of 'run of the mill' patch cords and cables that are in 90% of todays recording studios. (yesterdays too)
I have an extensive tape collection, and several reel to reel masters that were made in the late 50's (purchased from a local studio) They sound wonderful. I don't have any special storage system other than the box they came in.
The condition of the tape seems to depend a lot on the quality of its manufacturing, and we all know there was a ton of crummy tapes made over the years but studios usually stayed away from lesser brands. Sould I find that one of them is drying out, I can always dub it onto a new tape and still have an excellent sounding master copy good for another 50 years.
Most all of our treasured LP's are derived from tape, and like photographic film you can still make an excellent print today from a decades old negative.. Just saying. Tape is an excellent archival medium.
With regard to prosummer machines, I would happily pit my Pioneer, ReVox, Crown and Sony playing a 15ips master copy against any digital source. To me it just sounds better and for me that's what's most important.
N.
|
hwsworkshop, A collection like that is worth getting a second machine and making safety copies. (I need to do the same) I love your final thought. RTR does deserve a comeback, and I believe that is what is happening. I remember not too long ago when I couldn't walk into any shop and browse new LP's. Now when I go, there are always others doing the same thing. The more who realize what a wonderful medium RTR and then take a plunge by purchasing a second hand deck will of course increase demand for product, parts, and tapes. The recent audio shows in the last years have really been displaying RTR as a source for speakers, amps, preamps etc, as well as for new tapes. This link is from a blog I enjoy and a fellow Agon member. https://audio16.wordpress.com/2014/05/17/impressions-from-munich-high-end-iii/That's encouraging. N. |
Dhl93449,
I was thinking that about my machines after I replied to you. A check of the schemeatics yesterday confirmed you're correct. My machines don't have any IC opamps.
You make a valid point with regard to recording studios however. There are so few who give this type of consideration. Sear Sound Recording is one such studio that does. Using tube boards and tube Studer and Ampex reel to reels. Still, the IC oppamp has become so common these days with so many modern recording related devices using them.
I was surprised about your John Curl story. I had always heard he was a stubborn "no comprises" type of guy.
If you read a few posts above, you will see that others have vintage tapes as well. It is a shame because I think the Scotch/Ampex sticky shread syndrome really caused many to feel that tape isn't reliable. I have had problems with Scotch 206 and Ampex 456. But these were the only tapes I've ever had issue with. Several I have restored with excellent results..
Let's hope that if a new machine does materialize that it is a good one. Analog tape is the basis of the sound we all love.
N
|
myles_b_astor
Thank you for the link! Makes me smile.
Norman |
larryi,
Back in the late 70's early 80's when I was working in a studio we would have to run second generation masters. The mixed down master was almost always done at 15ips. To save time, we would take the 15ips tape and then play it back at 30ips. The machine making the recording was also running at 30ips. Honestly, there was no loss of information whatsoever. We did this regularly using either Scully's or Ampex machines.
I am pretty certain that many of those companies making second generation masters are doing the exact same thing as we did. Running and recording at 30 and playing back at 15.
This would certainly be necessary to play into the economics of mass producing second generation master tapes. I don't know of any machine capable of 30ips that is less than stellar in performance.
Studer, Sony, MCI, Telefunken, Scully, Ampex were all common place in various studios and dubbing banks.
When we think about the cost of two metal reels, tape, packaging, and the labor to record and package the item, $450.00 is still a bit on the high side. If they could cut that cost to just under $200.00 per title, I think they would have a hard time keeping them on the shelf.
We should also consider some master dubs at 7.5 ips I have heard some of these and I must say in most instances that I absolutely cannot tell the difference between a 15ips half track and it's 7.5ips half track copy. If we were talking quarter track then it would be very obvious, but half track is a different story. Just think what that would do to the cost of second generation masters?
Norman
|
larryi,
"The issue there is whether the hyper-critical audiophile market would accept anything that appears to be a compromise."
What hyper-critical audiophiles don't understand is that everything is a compromise! Compromises are made every time a recording is created. Every component, cable, speaker etc., they are all compromises.
I have never heard anything that sounds 'live'. Ever. I've heard close, but never live. One can always distinguish a live performance from a recording. It's the same in a studio as well. Step into the live room then step into the sound booth. You'd be deaf not to hear the difference.
These hyper-critical purist audiophiles would upchuck if they knew what processes took place in the recording loop. However, when it comes to playing back that same recording, they treat it as a ceremonial experience that 'can't be altered'. Yet they alter it anyway, using room treatments, esoteric cables, LOMC cartridges with a tipped high end curve, and any sonic enhancing tweak they can come up with.
When we prefer one component over another we are altering what we hear, and there is nothing wrong with that. It has however become ridiculous when I go to a friends house and he is auditioning power cables, and A/C receptacles. Really?
But I do suppose your are correct, they would never accept a 7.5ips half track recording regardless of how good it sounded. I would welcome them however, as for me it's the music that matters.
Norman
|
wolf_garcia,
And so the need to record them! =) I mix some small venues as well. Mostly jazz trio's. Tapes sound amazing, even just using a couple of well placed mic's does pretty good.
Nothing like hearing a solo acoustic guitar or piano though. It seems that the solo instruments are harder to record somehow. For me, these are the easiest ones to detect when it comes to telling the difference between recorded music and live.
N.
|
inna,
Here is my quote: "We should also consider some master dubs at 7.5 ips I have heard some of these and I must say in most instances that I absolutely cannot tell the difference between a 15ips half track and it's 7.5ips half track copy."
Easy to explain. Note that I said we should consider 'some' and in 'most' instances.
If you are making a half track master copy from 15ips to a second generation master half track at 7.5ips, and your machine is properly calibrated you really won't hear a difference on most material. Look at a machines spec at 7.5ips and compare it to the spec at 15ips. I personally can't think of even one machine that specs better at 15 than it does at 7.5ips
15ips became the defecto setting in the 1950's, because it allowed high end frequency extremes. As machines electronics, more importantly head design improved along with the quality of tape, 7.5ips half track can easily match the performance of most material recorded at 15ips.
The other reason that material is recorded at 15ips and 30ips in the studio is headroom. Here, when recording live these speeds have an advantage. This however does not translate into making a dub. The dynamics of recording a drum set live is completely different that dubbing a recording of a drum set.
At the slower speed, nearly every machine will give you more bottom end, and all of them will easily spec to 20,000hz +/- 1db.
The source material matters as well. If you are listening to classic rock, and the machine is running at spec, you won't hear a difference. This is also true of complex classical. With solo instruments, piano and guitar it's much more difficult because of the frequency limits of the solo instrument itself. Your not going to hear a 35hz note from a Martin D-45 for example.
If we are talking about quarter track, then there is not contest whatsoever. But with half track, 7.5ips the sonics can be outstanding.
I have several half track 7.5ips second generation studio master that will make your jaw drop.
And my point was not to create a debate as to tape speeds, but to provide an option for those wanting to purchase prerecorded tapes at a more reasonable cost. And keep in mind that, and a second generation half track master at 7.5ips will blow the pants off of its vinyl brother every time.
Norman
|
Sam,
I believe your Studer is already factory aligned for those settings. It's a near perfect machine!
Norman |
m-db, Here is a link shared by miles_b_astor recently. http://avshowroomsforums.com/showthread.php?5-Companies-Currently-Producing-15ips-Reel-to-Reel-tapes...! You can get them for a little less that half that amount. Also, if there are any local studio's in your area, they too will sell off safety copies and masters of older recordings. My son has my old Pioneer 909. This was my wife's favorite machine. She loved the quarter track format (don't have to rewind to play) and the auto reverse. It's also an excellent sounding machine, with superb build quality. I seen one once modded with half track heads and high speed. I wish that were an option for us all, as that was a very popular machine. I recommend to all those that have a 900 series machine to loosen the tension a little on the tape tensioners. It really saves on head wear and doesn't need to be so tight with the dual capstans. I find that analog tape is really the best storage method for archiving recordings. There are tape formulas that have held up well for over 50 years. Of course, having a safety copy with a newer formula is always safe measure. Since you mentioned the 909 and it's quarter track, you should check out some of the old releases in that format from the 60's and 70's. If you are a Beatles fan it will knock your socks off. Those old Capitol tapes are outstanding! Norman |
m-db.
I love the old Ampex and Crown machines. Pioneer is a unique company. Many don't realize the commitment they made to the open reel format. Before doing studio work in the late 70s, I did some time in the Chicago area radio stations. Several used Pioneer half track machines. Before that, I never even considered them, but seeing those decks run a literal 24/7 blew me away. That and the plug in head assemblies. They were built to last and are super easy to maintain. Been using them since. I like my Pioneers 1050, much better than my ReVox B77 series I.
I also agree about Pioneer speakers. Even back to the HPM series. Always wanted a good set of HPM 100's
Norman |
|
Sam,
I still thinking that there is another company that will display a new reel to reel as well. I am basing that on Michael Fremers report. It seems like someone who has produced them in the past is gearing up for it once more. Almost certainly has to be Studer, or NAGRA. Both have strong financial backing and could pull this off pretty easy. I know Studer has kept all their tooling for servicing their professional machines.
I don't have the tapes but do have a set of CD's with the necessary calibration test tones. I use them to set the Bias and of course check head alignment.
Fun indeed!
Norman
|
It's hard to imagine that it will be manufactured in either Germany or Switzerland at such a low entry price. Maybe it will be built in China with a ReVox label?
|
|
|
Inna,
Coming from ReVox I am certain it will be of 'audiophile' quality. Yes, they're are many classic alternatives, as is true with any piece of gear we may be looking for.
I beleive that this move by ReVox will inspire other 'classic' open reel manufactures to follow this lead. The easiest of which is Otari and possibly NAGRA.
This may also inspire more companies to provide parts for machines that are still in use. It would be easy for TEAC, SONY, Pioneer etc, to gradually move back into production. The market of course will have to be strong, which from what I understand is more so in Europe and Asia then here in the States.
There are over 30 companies now providing open reel titles something that we would have thought impossible a decade ago.
Very good news indeed.
N |
|
miner42,
Yes it was introduced this past weekend. Looking forward to seeing what type of modular system this will be and wondering how long before the deck lands state side. Reading reports of those who attended mention that the deck is designed to be 'affordable'…hahaha maybe to some. Though I will probable not own one, it is refreshing to see something like this again. Makes me nostalgic for the mid to late 70's when CES and Munich were exciting to attend and most all of the products were within reach of anyone who wanted hi-fi.
I would imagine that they would have an actual production unit at the 2017 CES. Will have to wait and see.
N. |
