Reel to reel
The signal that comes out of the cartridge, goes to the "in" of the phono-pre; after the phono-pre amplifies this signal it leaves "out" to the "in" of the tape deck. On playback, the signal goes from the playback head to the reel's internal amp and then out to the line amp. The reel's internal amp is analogous to the phono-pre, and plays a part in the ultimate outcome. |
In regard to the playback being better than the LP from the TT; that does seem impossible; the funny thing is, I just enjoyed it without ever thinking about it, but now that this fact is being questioned, I'm forced to think about it. There have been many threads here about "phono-preamps". The signal from the cartridge; is that the original before it reaches the phono-pre? How many times have you read how tremendously one phono pre improved the sound over another? On playback, the magnetic signal on the tape is the same as the signal from the cartridge that goes to the phono-preamp , If phono-preamps make such a difference, why not the internal amp in the reel; those amps would make the same difference as phono-preamps. |
"Using the Otari at 15ips, the recordings were as good as vinyl but never better. How can it get better or more info from the source?" I assume that statement is directed to me. Since I operate in a vacuum, I assumed everyone got these same results. I also considered Otari to be better than my deck; "It ain’t necessarily so". This statement has been directed to me so many times, that it’s not good enough to just restate my answer; consequently, I have to find answers. First, we must examine how my deck is different from all the rest. I have all "Black Gate" electrolytic capacitors in my deck, and there are quite a few. What are Black Gate capacitors? Let us try "Google" for the answer to that question. https://www.hificollective.co.uk/components/black_gate_caps.html https://www.partsconnexion.com/blackgate-electrolytic-capacitors.html Could it be that all of those "Black Gate" capacitors in my deck, that are not in other decks make such a difference? While I knew they made a difference, you guys have confirmed just how big of a difference they make. |
I have a Technics RS 1500 that I modified by replacing all the electrolytic capacitors with "Black Gates", and also replacing all the transistors with new ones. Panasonic people are wonderful to do business with; while I didn't get the caps from them, they supplied the new transistors, plus new tape rollers. As you know, the noise floor is related to the signal level, and that's where you would hear tape hiss. If the signal level is automatically higher than the noise floor, tape hiss will not be heard. What I'm saying, is that if my music signal is strong at a low level, it will so over ride the noise floor as not to be heard. In the past, when I had that cheap AKAI, I definitely remember tape hiss. I don't know if you know about "Black Gate" capacitors, but they are definitely a game changer, and will command a higher price and a quick sale for any working component that has them. When I was listening to playback of a brand new record, just a few minutes ago, I heard record noise, that constant low level noise during silence, but no tape hiss; I've been doing this long enough to know the difference. |
orpheus 10 If you are telling us that your tape copies (high level signal) sound better, than the source LP - (low level signal) - LP - in your room/ system; then it simply IMO indicates improvements can be made to your vinyl setup. This makes "0" sense; whatever the vinyl, it is reflected on the tape playback; it's not "different". Someone else gave the technical reasons why it sounds better; it was related to much higher definition, the reel picks up more information from the set up. No matter how much you improved the vinyl setup, the tape would sound better. |
I will never acquire any other tapes aside from the one's I make; any time tapes are recorded and played back on the same machine, they are perfect. The machine would have to be calibrated for someone else's tape, and it makes no sense to go through that trouble when I'm in such a narrow range of music. I've been listening to 15 IPS, and 7.5 IPS tape all morning. While the 15 IPS is better, it's too short and too expensive, I wont be recording at that speed in the future. Brand new tape at 7.5 is good enough for me. |
I don't have "tape hiss"; evidently you were not doing proper maintenance, or bought cheap tape. I had an AKAI that had all the problems you stated "double", but my Technics RS 1500, has been major trouble free for the last 20 years. It's been calibrated and I do maintenance frequently; clean heads, de-magnetize, and clean rollers with rubber cleaner. With good tape, no turntable can compare; and the funny thing is, I record from the TT, and LP's sound so much better; I could write an entire page describing the improved playback, but I wont; especially since there are so many who state this is impossible. As soon as I finish this post, I'm going to indulge in 15 IPS playback. So long, and may the force be with you. |
At 15 IPS, my tape deck defies logic; yes, the copy is better than the source. At 7.5 IPS, the tape equals the source. Most people agree on this; if that's so, what's the improvement at 15 IPS? I don't make the news, I just report it; 15 IPS on reel was better than the record being played through the rest of the rig; the speakers were bigger, the room was filled with more music, there was more depth; there was more dynamic range. I'm not the first person to observe and state this "fact". I just report the news, some scientist will have to figure it out. |
Maybe it would help if I compared the size of the tape to the size of the signal; beginning with a cassette, and working up to 1/2 track, which uses all of the 1/4 inch tape in one direction; that yields a lot more signal strength than what many people used to save money on tape and recorded in two directions. In regard to tape speed, that yields "resolution"; if anyone has ever been into photography, maybe they know what a difference that makes. When you combine increased size of the signal, plus increased speed, you have transformed those tiny squiggles in the LP to giant squiggles that are exact reproductions of the tiny squiggles, and that gives us giant music. I hope that helps. |
The most wonderful thing about this forum is "Freedom of speech"; anyone can state as "unequivocal fact", that the Sun rises in the West and sets in the East, and that's a good thing. However, there are those who know, and those who don't know; it's up to the seekers of truth to separate the two; fact from fiction. |
I am not making the claim but stating the fact, as I have already stated in my post, but first you must tell me at what speed you are referring to, what kind of tape, and whether or not the machine was 1/4 track or 1/2 track? "There is always a loss when copying from one analog source to another." That's false. Magnetic tape recording works by converting electrical audio signals into magnetic energy, which imprints a record of the signal onto a moving tape covered in magnetic particles. ... Between the reels, the tape passes over a series of magnetic heads that convert audio signals into magnetic energy and back again.Mar 31, 2018. You were probably using 1/4 track reel in order to record in both directions, that meant your tape had less signal area, meaning less of the tape was converted to magnetic energy, which would become audio energy on play back, and you didn't say what speed you recorded at. "I transferred many LPs to RTR and on a good day I was happy if the tape copy fidelity was close to the LP." There is far too much information left out of that statement; 1/2 track 1/4 track, recording speed, etc. The top machines, of which there were many, gave top results, but there were also many lesser machines. For example; AKAI had models from the best to the cheapest; that was a wide ranging variable. We are not talking about tape media of today as opposed to yesterday, we are talking about yesterdays machines and tape. In regard to my claim that the playback of an LP far exceeded the original LP; take it for what it's worth, I have no intention to prove or disprove it. Absolutely nothing is better, including amps, pre-amps, phono amps; just different. A top of the line ARC amp of 30 years ago, would sound as good as a brand new one; assuming both amps had brand new parts; for my money, I would take which one was the cheapest. I have a Technics RS 1500 that I modified by replacing all the electrolytic capacitors with "Black Gates", and also replacing all the transistors with new ones. Panasonic people are wonderful to do business with; while I didn't get the caps from them, they supplied the new transistors, plus new tape rollers. |
Uberwaltz, 15 IPS is reserved for special LP's only, I record at 7.5 most of the time; especially with brand new tape. When you record and playback on your machine, even if it's a little bit off, you will still get good results because your record and playback speed are the same. However, if you buy prerecorded tapes, your machine has to be perfect. As long as you're having fun, what you got sounds good to me. |
Reel to reel is ultimate audio, this is unequivocal fact; just a few days ago, in order to prove this to myself, I decided to record one of my favorite Santana albums at 15 IPS. This is something I had never done because it shortens recorded time and raises cost; a ridiculous thing to do; never the less, I proceeded. The results were far beyond my expectations; the experience of hearing this album that I played so many times that the new one I recorded must have been the fourth album, was so intense and exhilarating, that I repeated it over and over; the same as other experiences that I never tire of repeating. As to speakers, what speakers; the sound emanated from a black velvet background of silence across the rear wall; left, right, and center, with background sounds that were to the rear of the rear wall. Santana, "Barboletta" is one of the best albums ever made; let me give you a rundown of the artists. Personnel Leon Patillo – vocals (3,4,5,7,8), piano (8), electric piano (3,5), organ (4) Flora Purim – vocals (1,11) Jules Broussard – soprano and tenor saxophones (4,6,9,11) Carlos Santana – guitar (3-5,7-11) percussion (2,9), congas (7), gong (8), vocals (11), producer Tom Coster – piano (4,9), Hammond organ (7,10,11), electric piano Fender Rhodes (2,9-11), organ (3,5,6,8), Moog synthesizer (4,8), producer Stanley Clarke – bass guitar (6,9-11) David Brown – bass guitar (2,4,5,7,8) Michael Shrieve – drums (2-5,7,8), producer Leon "Ndugu" Chancler – drums (6,9) Airto Moreira – drums (10,11), percussion (12), sound effects (1), triangle (11), vocals (12) Armando Peraza – percussion, congas (2,4,5,6,8,11), bongos (3,6,11), soprano saxophone (10) José Areas – timbales (4), congas (2,3) Michael Carpenter – echoplex (2) Although all the artists on this LP were fantastic "Chepito" really caught my attention; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ceir7Jj7pZc&start_radio=1&list=RDEMkuOapXZbfe8SlzNP9mmMrg Here's the thing about 15 IPS; each individual instrument pops out of this black space in such a way that you can focus on it alone. Like all of the best things in life, the question comes up, "Can you afford them"? Personally, I have never been able to "afford" hardly anything, yet I manage to indulge. "One day this is going to be all over". |
The aim of every audiophile is to go where no audiophile has gone before; it's for certain that I've gone beyond anything I've heard before, but it wasn't cheap, then again, it never is. I'm speaking of recording from a well set up high end TT to a perfectly maintained reel at 15 IPS. Begin with the output from the phono pre to tape in on the reel, and let her rip at 15 IPS. RMG blank tape was $80. dollars, and at 15 IPS, that only accommodated 1 LP; not exactly cheap, but what a ride; Santana was in the house! https://www.amazon.com/RMG-EMTEC-Studio-Mastering-4x2500/dp/B00890FBXY |
