Reel to reel

Where can you buy the LAST tape head preservative?

When I wanted to buy LAST stylus preservative I ended up buying it from England.

Any USA resellers?

geoffkait14,555 posts03-31-2019 2:39pm"The distortion one hears on CDs (mostly) comes directly from the playback CD player. They never really ironed out all the kinks. Let me put it another way. The distortion is not (rpt not) on the CD or the original recording. As the little mice in the movie Babe, say, “That’s just the way things are.”"

I hear ya geoffkait.  I have heard that theory as well.  However, I have a more realistic example:  After having collected several Beatles cd's, and not really having compared the relatively new format with my then-still fairly new LP's, I noticed something while playing "Tell Me Why" on the CD,..... it seemed as though something was missing... I couldn't put my finger on it, so I did an A/B comparison.  And there it was... on the LP, Ringo is tapping away on the ride cymbal.  On the cd, the ride cymbal was basically non-existent.  In this case, I think the omission can be contributed to the mixing engineer rather than any shortcoming of my gear.  It was then I realized that CDs are a very subjective format... if the mixing engineer decides he'd like to be "creative" and put his own spin on the artists work, he did so.  It was clear that was the case with the Beatles CD as I know the song very well, having grown up with Lp's and 45's.  Perhaps contemporary cd's are better, IMHO since most artists are more involved with how their CDs are mixed and processed.

A quick a/b comparison through my complete cd collection (which wasn't very big and still isn't') verified this discovery as being common.  It was then I wrote off cd's, for the most part, as the inferior format.  I do have some contemporary cd's that are absolutely stunning in their sound, so perhaps this lack of fidelity pertains mainly to the early days of CD production.

Hi-Resolution music files, in my experience, are more often better than the LP version I have, especially if played via a high-quality DAC.  Probably because a lot of those files have been edited (not by me) to remove pops, clicks and such from the original, high quality pressing to make, at least to my ears, a perfect, dynamic, noise-free recording in digital form.  

Right or wrong, Just my 2 cents.

I don't know if anyone with open reel decks uses LAST tape head preservative but I do with my Nakamichi, before playing each cassette. I send my deck for service every three years or so, and despite having thousands of hours on it, the technician says that the head wear is negligible. This is of course not a substitute for head cleaning, though it cleans too. It also sounds a touch better. When recording I sure treat erase and record heads too with the LAST. It only takes a few seconds to apply, no hassle at all, great stuff. There is in addition LAST tape preservative, but I can't apply it with cassettes, with reels you can. Walter Davies of LAST, nice man by the way, said that he had used his own preservatives for all his reels and decks for many years.

There are two parts to a deck; the mechanics and the electronics; hence "Studer Levinson" might be the best home deck made.

Some people think that buying a professional deck is best, but that's a big mistake because of the complexity of professional decks that makes them a mistake for home use.

I wont upgrade for two reason; I've recorded many reels of tape, and I know when you record and playback on the same machine, the speed is always perfect, and the new machine might not like these reels of tape.

The other reason is now that I've modified the electronics, I like the results; not that I don't always dream of a new reel; that's the way it is.

My mistake, both decks were 2 track.  Possibly the Revox handles tape better.

Is Revox, Studer-Revox, and they just leave the Studer off?

Two track sounds better than 1/4 track, even if the 1/4 track is a better more expensive deck.

After all of this conversation about decks, someone should be able to tell me why this is so.

It is BS.
benjie, which one of your decks do you like more ? That Revox is two track too, right ?

My experience is that many CDs kill the LP versions.  Columbia classical is one label that excels on CD.  Example, Mitropoulos conducting Prokofiev Romeo and Juliet.  Original first stamper and later stamper Columbia, Odyssey reissue, first CD issue all sound muddy to an extreme.  The latest CD issue 100% clears up the mud and presents an exquisite sounding recording which is on the master tape obviously.  The reason I have so many CDs now is because of the excellent remastering of classical and many jazz CDs (like Mode LPs were only mono, the later stereo issues were dreadful pressings, now issued in superb CDs).  Also, Marston mastering of 78s is phenomenal, playing acoustic recordings back correctly is a huge pain and owning/storing 100,000 78s is too great a challenge.

I hated CDs until the early 2000s when I heard players which made the digital tracks sound more like analog.  Now I own an EAR Acute and think about upgrading to a COS Engineering DAC unit which was mind-blowingly good.  

benjie

I have restored both of my R2R decks, Techincs RS-1500 2 track and Revox PR99 MkII. And I can say without a doubt that there is no "euphoric distortion" generating circuit in either deck.

I’m sure there’s no circuit in either deck designed to generate distortion, be it euphonic or "euphoric." The distortion - however slight or pleasant - is just a consequence of imperfect electronics.

I don’t think the term existed 35 or 40 years ago ... Sorry I am going to have to call BS on that one.

You might want to do some research on this matter, which dates back to at least the 1940s. For example, see Brockbank, Weiss (if I recall correctly) from the IEEE journal. This is a very well-studied field.

which is why my little zoom 6 w SD card can outperform MANY high end CD transports....

The distortion one hears on CDs (mostly) comes directly from the playback CD player. They never really ironed out all the kinks. Let me put it another way. The distortion is not (rpt not) on the CD or the original recording. As the little mice in the movie Babe, say, “That’s just the way things are.”

One of the reasons I gave away most of my cd's was the engineer who mixed the cd used either compression and/or did not allow the original mix to shine through.  Michael Fremer at Stereophile/Analog planet has done an exhaustive amount of research on this and I'm sure the reason why all but only the best cd's are inferior to the original LP and the analog master tapes is out there.  I am certainly no expert but from what I have heard, a cd mix, even if its from the master tape directly, is subject the mixing engineers opinion as to what sounds good.  If it's not true to the master tape/LP, then it's not for me.  This is why I am gearing up to sample a dupe of a master tape.  Those who have had the good fortune to own or sample one of these tapes have raved about the dynamic range.  

As far as using my (pro or semi pro) Otari or Technics (after refurbishment) decks to record a compilation tape from LP and/or hi res music files, I plan on doing the same, mainly for the convenience.  I have recorded hi res (Flac,DSD) music files from one of 3 stand-alone hard drives (total size of the all files, approx 6 tb) via my Asus laptop running Jriver music player through the integrated DAC within my moderately priced Marantz PM7005 to my TEAC X-1000R and when switching from Tape to Source, I can hear virtually no difference in sound quality.. and this through my "B" system.  I expect even better results when I do the same via my "A" system:  Otari MX5050Bii2, soon to arrive Yamaha A-S2100 Solid State integrate amp, BMC PureDac and GoldenEar Triton 1 speakers. 

I know this appears somewhat academic to many, especially to those considering re-entering the R2R genre, but I find it is great fun determining what provides the best sound through my system.

Finally, a nod to all those contributing to this conversation... most of you know far more than I do about the subject, and I am enjoying the real and theoretical knowledge presentation.  

benjie

How does introducing distortion into a recording enhance or increase the overall musicality of the music? I would think an increased in distortion would have a negative effect not a positive one.

There is such a thing as "euphonic distortion" and some people may prefer the result to a more accurate signal. There use to be freeware called AddDistortion - I’m not sure if it’s still available. It worked only in mono, but was useful in understanding the audibility and qualities of different kinds and amounts of distortion. There have also been AES papers on this subject.

You might give a listen to any number of Sheffield releases available in both DtD and treasury ( from Tape ) versions. And CD for that matter

anybody try the free experiment with your deck electronics in the loop yet ? Not that hard and might save you a lot of money on tape.....

orpheus10

LP and CD both came from the "Master tape"; I think the only difference is obvious; one is digital, and the other is analog.

You may well be correct - but not necessarily. After all, the LP wasn’t made directly from the master tape, right? It would have to go through an RIAA EQ network, and almost certainly some amount of limiting or compression, if only to protect the cutter head.

Abraxas is a great album btw, and one of my favorites. Great art, too.

LP and CD both came from the "Master tape";  I think the only difference is obvious; one is digital, and the other is analog.

benjie

When I record these files, the information is there, it’s just not very audible. It is more in the background. Recording the file to tape seems to bring out more detail of the recording than is present through a digital player for the file.

Understood. But if what you hear from an analog tape dub differs from what you hear from the source itself, that difference is distortion. And it’s fine you find the tape preferable. I get it. I’m a tape guy, too.

orpheus10

... I recall being at a high end emporium and requesting them to play my CD of Santana’s "Abraxas". This was my CD; I bought the LP Abraxas when it came out; to say that I was familiar with the album would be an understatement; the background music that had been barely audible on all the rigs I had, was cleanly audible here. There were certain sounds that I have not heard clearly audible before nor since, and that was from a CD

That’s not at all hard to believe. An LP and its CD counterpart are often mastered differently.

I think right there we now have at least 3 posters in agreement as to what is actually being said and claimed on r2r tape playback.

orpheus 10

Are you using an MC cartridge. How are you loading it for playback ? 

In regard to information present, and not heard clearly; I recall being at a high end emporium and requesting them to play my CD of Santana's "Abraxas". This was my CD; I bought the LP Abraxas when it came out; to say that I was familiar with the album would be an understatement; the background music that had been barely audible on all the rigs I had, was cleanly audible here. There were certain sounds that I have not heard clearly audible before nor since, and that was from a CD.



Keep in mind that this was in a "High end Emporium"; which meant that every detail in audio had been addressed; the electronics were "top of the line" Audio Research, and even the CD player was ARC. The speakers were Thiel, and the price of all that equipment was far beyond my reach, but I heard it on that day.

Cleeds

If I am reading and interpreting this correctly, I do not believe anybody is claiming that it contains more information than the original.

Rather that the information has always been there but a 15ips tape record on high quality gear reveals some of the hidden or masked details and information that was not audible on the source .

At least that is my take from this so far......

orpheus10

Here again Cleeds you are referring to my statement and my statement alone; no one else stated any thing that would incite you to make the statement ... I did not say that there was information which was not on the LP.

I’m not sure to what statement you refer or why you would think it was in response to you. When I respond to someone here, I usually quote them to make it clear. I wish you would do the same. Regardless, there’s at least one user here who seems to claim that an analog tape dub contains information not on the original:

benjie

First we listen to the streamed version off the internet and then compare it to the tape I have made from the same digital stream. In every case the tape sounds better, much better. The recording has more depth and richness with an increase in dynamic range ... tape has 80 million magnetic particles per recorded inch available during the recording process we are able to saturate the tape with every detail that is present in a recording. The R2R tape player is then able to reproduce all of that detail that is available in stunning clarity which seems to be not present through a digital player.

Here again Cleeds you are referring to my statement and my statement alone; no one else stated any thing that would incite you to make the statement;

"That’s not to say that you might not prefer a copy of the original, but it can’t contain musical information not present on the master."

While you are referring to the statement I made that the playback sounded better than the LP when recorded at 15 IPS, I did not say that there was information which was not on the LP.

It's all about the highest degree of definition; there was information on the LP which was transferred to the tape, that was not profoundly amplified by the LP playback. That's a day and night difference from information not present.

benjie

If analog tape is so flawed then why do recording studios and engineers keep going back to it to produce new remastered versions of albums ?

That some here have noted some of the inherent limitations of tape doesn’t mean we think it’s "so flawed." As you stated, there is no  perfect recording method.

When creating a newly remastered LP, it makes sense to start with the original analog master. No copy made from that master can be higher quality than the original. That’s not to say that you might not prefer a copy of the original, but it can’t contain musical information not present on the master.

Analog Tape is King ! Prove me wrong.

No one can prove that a preference is "wrong." You prefer analog tape, and that’s fine. I like it, too.

1/2" 30 ips, that's the spirit. 
But..some master tapes are really old so in certain cases your best master tape dub is original pressing record.

Created a thread in the music section so the RtR fans can post what they are listening to.... on RtR tape of course....

enjoy the music !!!!!!  

After you level match try discerning if you just like your deck electronics or your deck electronics on recorded tape....

Some of the best sounding mono LPs were made using 1/2" tape and/or 30 ips speed tape.  For acoustic music, the simpler the microphone setup, the better (2 or 3 mikes back in the late 50s and early 60s).  

Anyone using 1/2" or 1" deck ? Big difference ?

I own a Tandberg 9000x and a Technics 1500, 1/4 and 1/2 track 3 speed.  I have made choral recordings using the Tandberg that sound fantastically lifelike.  I also own many direct discs, some of which were recorded with some hall ambiance and also sound lifelike.  Besides that, I have 7,000 78s which are direct discs and some of those have lifelike mid-range sound.  I've heard studio RR mastertapes that are wonderful too.  So, I have concluded that RR and disc recordings can sound fantastic.  Too bad so many of my LPs from the 70s and 80s were not as well recorded and LPs from earlier period were not necessarily well stamped or well mastered.  I have also recorded digitally 24/96 of chamber, choirs and orchestral music which sound superb.  The method of recording/reproducing is comparable to splitting hair and the resulting sound quality has more to do with execution than the format.

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.

Gusser,


      https://www.turntableneedles.com/find10.asp?manfg=TECHNICS%3B%20Panasonic%3B%20National&modelnam...

benjie

Do you also feel that there is signal loss when recording from a digital source to tape?

Do you think analog tape is a perfect, distortion-free recording medium? 

Nashville Recording Supply has it, but it’s not cheap. My Pioneer RT-701 loves Maxell and Memorex, and I’ve had very good luck buying used tape on eBay. As long as it was stored correctly, you’ll probably be ok. 

benjie

Why do you think there is information lost between the LP and the phono preamp?

Using a test record and distortion analyzer, it can easily be shown that different phono preamps have varying degrees of success in retrieving what’s on an LP. And of course, no phono preamp is perfect - even the best of them add some noise and some distortion, as shown on even manufacturer’s specs.

No phono cartridge is perfect, either.

Orpheus10.  Will do on contacting Pioneer for parts for refurbishing my RS-1506.  Thanks.
gusser

orpheus10

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.

That's fine. And it's fine if you prefer an LP tape dub to the LP itself. That's a legitimate preference. It's only an issue when someone states that the dub is technically superior to the LP itself.

On playback, the magnetic signal on the tape is the same as the signal from the cartridge that goes to the phono-preamp

No it isn't. The tape is made from the output of the phono preamp. It cannot recreate information lost between the LP and the phono preamp output. But again, that doesn't mean that you can't prefer the dub to the LP.