I’m entertaining the idea of purchasing a reel to reel to record my albums on and also use to possibly soften the digital age a bit. Does anyone know where or if NEW blank tapes can be purchased? Are there any thoughts on a resurgence of R2R and if blank media will become more easily accessible?
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.
When I got my tape deck years ago I had every intention of recording my daughter on our upright grand piano, together with our son on acoustic guitar. And maybe me on trombone. Yeah...no jokes please. They used to do an amazing Stairway to Heaven - separately. But trying to get them in the same room to perform with their schedules was as easy as trying to catch our Savannah cat when she doesn’t want to be caught. Millennials......
Last time I checked my bank account did not run to hiring Avenged Sevenfold to perform in my garage unfortunately ...
Understood, me neither! For that, we have CD, LP, streaming. (In any event you probably wouldn't want to record them in your garage, unless your car space has a lot better acoustics than mine.)
Of course, if Avenged Sevenfold is selling real-time tape dubs of their releases, good for them!
This whole vinyl thing is a money making industry BS. All the big ticket tables, arms, cartridges, phono stages etc. All we need is good tape decks and good pre-recorded tapes ...
That’s part of the problem - it’s extremely expensive to manufacture high quality pre-recorded tape, because to do that they have to be duplicated in real-time. It’s simply not a practical medium for commercial music.
What amuses me is that the tape advocates here seem to be content with simply using their decks to dub LPs. If you really want high quality recordings, why not use your deck to make your own, using real musicians? That’s where you’ll find the real magic of tape.
Inna - Put $200k vinyl set-up against $25k Studer and the vinyl will lose big time, not just lose.
And you can wheel that Studer to any room you like to take on all comers. Try that with the vinyl
Inna Put that $200k vinyl set up, against a $25k vinyl setup. If the more expensive set up, is not set up as required, and the $25k set up is, the $25k vinyl set up can, and will out perform it. fwiw. Anyone installing uber expensive vinyl gear on a suspended wood floor is just putting up a compromised solution. Large amounts of money will need to be spent on isolation products. Vinyl is a set up game of resonances and vibrations. The most expensive vinyl gear usually comes with set up guys for a reason. Such is the nature of the vinyl beast.
Ct0517 to orpheus10 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.
orpheus 10 This makes "0" sense; whatever the vinyl, it is reflected on the tape playback; it's not "different".
orpheus 10 Playing back vinyl in your room, involves a different set of parameters, outside of the vinyl signal itself entering your preamp/phonostage which you are outputting to record on tape. From the limited information you have given us, your situation seems to be one in which your tape setup has received attention, and we have no info on your vinyl setup. You don't show a virtual system; so unless you want to tell us your vinyl gear and setup specifics, for us to get a better picture of your vinyl situation, this conversation is over.
orpheus 10 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.
Not sure what you mean by narrow range. If you mean genre its all out there. When you acquire these tapes you have a choice of tape brand, EQ (IEC or NAB), and they come with test tones so you can match peak levels.
I hope that audiophile tape movement is gaining momentum. It will always probably be a limited number, but if it is a very stable - it's good. Get in touch with Germans and Japanese, they got some stuff, privileged Americans do too. Where do you think Flemming Rasmussen of Gryphon got his master tape dubs ? One reason why there are no better transistor amps than Gryphon.
"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.
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.
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? Every room at an audio show that played R2R always had a Tape Project tape, not a recording from an album. I think I heard a live recording onto R2R with very nice results. If I wanted to record my vinyl albums today, I would get something like Pure Vinyl and record them to my computer.
This has been a wonderful thread to read. I have always loved R2R's, now I have a better idea as to why. Thanks to all for both the technical and non-technical opinions and explanations.
Orpheus10, I have purchased a completely refurbed Otari MX5050Bii2 deck to enjoy while I refurbish my Old Faithful but aging Technics RS-1506US. I would be most grateful if you could pass along your contact info for the good people at Panasonic.
Btw: The gentlemen I purchased the Otari from is a pro and very approachable. He does about 2 Otari R2R's a month. My timing was perfect as he used 3 decks to make one pristine one, swapping parts between the 3 to make a near perfect machine. I don't why he was so nice to me. I'd guess it's partly due to the passion he has for refurbishing these machines. And the asking price wasn't outrageous for such a prime example of this wonderful machine.
If anyone would like his contact info, let me know. He has an account on the Reverb website.
Tbh of late I have never tried to tape any vinyl but I have taped hires streaming. On 2 cassette decks and one r2r.
In all instances the taped replay of the hires stream sounds more alive,warmer, fuller and just more musical.
Now you can say it is distortion and that’s fine,I really do not know or care.
As to tape hiss, on my older Akai cassette I can hear slight hiss inbetween tracks at elevated levels but even in quiet passages I really cannot say as I hear any. That is not to say it’s not there of course,just that it is not obtrusive to myself.
But even on my cheapo Sony r2r it is near impossible for me to detect any tape hiss recorded from hires streams onto Ampex tape ( all I have right now).
This whole vinyl thing is a money making industry BS. All the big ticket tables, arms, cartridges, phono stages etc. All we need is good tape decks and good pre-recorded tapes. Even no separate preamp is needed, though external play head preamp could take it even further. Right tape with gentle handling will last for hundreds of plays and for at least 30-40 years. For archive records is a good idea but that's all.
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.
Ralph, I don't fully trust your hearing and your neutrality and objectivity. Tape is overall superior to any LP pressing in real world. As for theoretical possibilities, I don't know, but there is always an issue of playback. Put $200k vinyl set-up against $25k Studer and the vinyl will lose big time, not just lose.
I have a first gen copy from the master tape of Talking Heads "True Stories" album. Honest, it is the genuine article. I also have the vinyl lp, the CD and a HIGH Def 96/24 download. With my system I can play all 4 versions at the same time. I can select from the preamp which version I would be listening to at that particular moment. Without a doubt the tape version blows away all others. I mean it is not even close. I have performed this test many times with friends and never has anyone selected anything else but the tape as the best sounding version of the music. It really is that obvious. My question is, how can the worst technically as far as distortion, bandwidth and background noise sound so much better than the far superior vinyl and digital formats?
The issue here is confusing the media with individual situations. If you recall, I had to refute the idea that there is no degradation with analog copies. There most definitely is! The first thing you have to sort out is the source of the LP. While LP is a higher performance medium, it does have its own issues. One of them is the stamper; since its Talking Heads the stamper was probably made though a 3-step process. But how many stampers were made? The first stampers made are the best sounding; like anything analog successive generations degrade; if you are on the 50th stamper its just not going to be as lively as the 1st. Then we have to sort out the provenience of the tape that was the master for the LP mastering. The reason you have a 2nd gen copy is likely because several were made so that the LP could be mastered and pressed in several plants in the US (and overseas as well). Which plant did your LP come from? If not the country of origin, its likely not to sound as good- in the country of origin there is a feedback process where a test pressing is sent to the artist and producer to sign off on. If your LP came from somewhere else this may not have happened.
If the label was pressed for time or if they were about their usual affairs, the last thing they want to do is pay $400/hour to the mastering engineer to sort out how to make the best lacquer of the recording possible without processing. Its much cheaper to throw a compressor and mono bass processor in the signal chain (both of which will degrade the sound as they are adding distortion and reducing bandwidth); that way they minimize the LP mastering cost; they’ll get something acceptable and it won’t be the ’best’.
Of course there is the issue of your LP playback which has a lot of variables as opposed to a pro audio tape machine which arguably has less.
I can go on but I think I’ve made my point several times over. And this is why I am a fan of tape, because it does offer the opportunity to get closer to the master, and while its performance is measurably and audibly inferior to the LP, the fact is that most of the time getting closer to the master recording makes it the medium of choice. BTW my Revox is down the road to its new owner. Thanks to all that contacted me.
I don't have "tape hiss"; evidently you were not doing proper maintenance, or bought cheap tape.
Tape hiss is inherent with all analog tape and all analog tape machines. It is caused by the random magnetic states of tape particles as they move past the playback head. If you can't hear it that's a different thing but its there nonetheless.
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.
orpheus 10 I could write an entire page describing the improved playback, but I wont; especially since there are so many who state this is impossible.
It is not impossible orpheus 10 for your particular situation.
When you are recording "punching" tapes you are using IEC or NAB EQ. Which EQ is it? Also remember when you are "punching" tape you are setting levels to the peak (this is important-come back to it) with NAB or IEC EQ, and playing them back on your own machine, same heads, same EQ, same levels. This is important.
Our records are cut - recorded- with RIAA Eq (treble boost/bass cut) Our phono stage puts an inverse RIAA EQ on them when you play them. The question remains for each of us - how well matched is our set up for playing back these records, since none of us are using the same type of machine that cut them. Different carts, different cart settings, different gains.....
Are each of using the best gain, cart setting when playing back records ?
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.
But hey, it sounds like you are having fun doing what you are doing, and you prefer tape, so I don’t see this happening any time soon. That’s fine too.
A better comparison for you would be to acquire some Master dubs of actual albums you own, compare them to your lps to determine how big the delta really is.
Here is an open letter of apology to AKAI buyers and owners; the model I had was a cheap bad one that I would not have bought if I knew what I was doing; AKAI makes better models.
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.
I used to have a Tandberg 6000X and then a Revox 77 and loved them back in the 70s. But I can't imagine anyone going open reel in 2019 unless they like the toy factor. Tape breaks, it is difficult to load, the machine is expensive to fix and has maintenance issues, head cleaning--all a nuisance. Then there is tape hiss. It's the 21st century my friend!
Agree with many before stated including the new tapes.
I recently took a plunge into R2R. Ended up with a professionally and fully restored Otari mX5050. These decks are really great as they can run three speeds (3.75, 7.5 and 15 ips - slowest needs to be switched on the back; mine has an added opening so its easy). I also lucked out getting an AKAI 630DB with 20+ vintage reels, mostly TDK, Maxell (some Scotch and Fuji). Some of the tapes are excellent. The Akai was a bargain vs the Otari, but it plays very nicely and sounds great. There is a LOT of information out there and some decks from TEAC, Otari and Technics (1500, 1700 etc) are really great IF fully restored. It will cost you but you will be appreciating the format better and will enjoy your recordings tremendously.
One has to spend extra time on learning how to properly clean (frequently) the tape path, demagnetization, and investing in reels, tape (new tape comes in a pancake without reels). I prefer metal reels, which can be bought old and new but very costly.
Prerecorded tape, esp 15ips is very expensive, usually several times the price of new pressing LP.
Enjoy the ride - i am (and the R2R resurrected my cassette decks too)
I understand. But for me open reel deck would make perfect sense. I don't play most of my records entirely so I have to jump and move the needle. I would make compilations. Another idea, very difficult to realize, is to find master tape dubs of the performances that were never released. Just take a listen on youtube, there is a lot more than officially released material. Pre-recorded easily available tapes, in addition to being extremely expensive, is not the music that I would listen to, perhaps with a few exceptions. No, tapes won't live as long as records but you can play them hundreds of times without any signal loss. I would sell most of my records after making recordings, except most valuable. German Audiophile Society is said to be the best place to look for rare stuff, I bet you better have connections there, any way. Legally, it is probably very much a grey area, but in any case it is seller's problem.
I have been down the R2R route a couple of times during the last 20 years with a pioneer rt901 and the otari 5050BL. The Otari is a much better deck with balanced input/outputs and 15ips. 10” tapes are pricey and at 15ips, it doesn’t take long to use up the tape. 15ips was the only way to go for the best SQ. My goal was to record all my vinyl. After playing around for awhile, I thought it was kind of foolish to do this. I have records from the 70’s and tape doesn’t last this long. I thought about joining a tape club but they didn’t have what I wanted and it was pricey. I did buy some prerecorded tapes at 3.75ips or 7.5ips and they sucked. So I sold them and never looked back
If no one has taken your offer of the Revox B-77, I would like it and no shipping necessary. I will drive up and pick it up myself. Will call you in next couple of days.
Nor only do you turn the speakers off when recording, you turn everything off that is not needed. But that's not why tape has an advantage in certain elements of sound even when it is a recording from vinyl. Besides, speaking of vinyl reproduction, playing records is a very 'bumpy' ride and there is nothing you can do about it, that's how it is. Yes, top level set-up minimizes it but it is still there. Vinyl is not a true audiophile format, understand and accept this, people, once and for all.
"There is always a loss when copying from one analog source to another." That’s false.
This statement is false. There is a loss of bandwidth and increase in distortion with each additional generation of analog copy.
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
So is this one. If you do things differently, it is possible to bypass problems that other equipment may have and yield a performance and audible improvement.
"What makes tape such a smart choice? For starters, it has greater dynamic range than vinyl, with extraordinary sound at the frequency extremes: the treble and bass. Next, consider the amount of signal processing that each medium requires. Vinyl: a lot. Tape: very little. Signal processing is the enemy of hi-fidelity.
I’m a fan of tape, but geez! This statement is false. The LP has bandwidth from about 12Hz to about 40KHz and with lower distortion. It also has a lower noise floor. That this is a fact should not be hard to ascertain! Anyone with an LP from the 70s or earlier can hear when the tape is started at the beginning of the LP- the background noise increases. The noise floor of an LP can be very nearly -90dB if everything is set up properly with the lacquer and the pressing machine does not vibrate as the vinyl copy cools. An example of the latter is the QRP pressing plant in Salinas KS. We did a job through there a few years ago with surfaces so quiet that quite literally the electronics was the noise floor, not the LP.
It helps to understand how vinyl and tape albums are manufactured. To make a record, the MT signal must be compressed to match the dynamic limits of vinyl. Some of the highs and lows are slashed in the bargain. All the other audio tricks needed to shoehorn a signal into those tiny grooves compromises the signal even more.
This statement is false. The reason compression is used is two-fold. First, there is an expectation that the LP might be played over the air, second, its a lot **cheaper** to engineer the LP if compression is used. You literally turn it on and read a book while the cutter head does its job. When no compression is used you have to be more careful to avoid overcutting prior grooves and making sure that the groove you cut can be played back without the stylus jumping out of the groove and such. But if you do that properly, the dynamic range of vinyl is greater than that of tape. Direct to disc recordings demonstrate what this is about. The limitation in LP dynamic range is in playback, not record. As reproducers have improved over the decades, so has the dynamic range that is possible.
The reason a tape recording of an LP can sound better than the LP itself is simply because quite often the speakers aren’t playing when the recording is made, and a tape machine is unaffected by room-borne vibration while a turntable is. My friends and I used to use this trick all the time in the old days to make better cassette recordings. BTW, I have a Revox B-77 that runs although it could use some minor service (tape counter needs a belt). Its mounted in a travel case. Speeds are 3 3/4" and 7/5" although it could be used at 15ips if a capstan adapter were used in the high speed mode. Free if you pay the shipping.
Again, deck does re-mastering when recording and the better it does it the better the sound. But it will never sound better than the analog source in every respect, this is nonsense, regardless of the number of magnetic particles. The recording will have certain advantages, as I stated, that might be particularly important to the listener, me included. It will not have greater dynamic range or resolution. Let's differentiate reality from BS. Some of you should question your hearing, preferences is one thing and hearing is another. Well-done pre-recorded tape is a completely different matter if you have a good deck in perfect order.
At 15 IPS the tape picks up the tiniest details; some that the cartridge glosses over ...
If the phono cartridge cannot retrieve these details, then what makes you think the tape can reconstruct them? The answer, of course, is that it can’t, even if the result "sounds better."
And remember that even at 15 IPS, tape is compromised reproducing HF as you near 0 dB.
Go back to 03-27-2019 7:53pm, in order to discover why 15 IPS sounds better than the original on playback.
At 15 IPS the tape picks up the tiniest details; some that the cartridge glosses over, are illuminated when recording at 15 IPS. This is amplified on playback.
@cleeds the 20a is a formidable sounding deck right out of the box
i suspect some of the replicant is better posters might benefit from a better DAC..but who is to argue with the news as fact in so subjective a hobby ?
I will try the theory out...a NEW use for the Leica...
print out a 300 x 300 photo and the use film to improve the detail !!!!
At 15 IPS, my tape deck defies logic; yes, the copy is better than the source ...
That doesn’t defy logic at all if you define "better" as a preference, and not a statement of technical superiority.
If we define high fidelity as truthfulness to the original, then we know that a dub of an LP made to tape can’t be superior to the original. At best, it can only be the equal of the source, because tape can only add distortion, no matter how little it might be. It can’t possibly retrieve resolution or dynamics that were not present in the original. (I’m assuming we’re not using any signal processing here, such as EQ or dynamic range expansion.)
It is not at all far fetched to think that the subtle distortion added by tape might make the result preferable to the original.
To be clear, I’m into tape, and have a half-track Crown 822 and a quarter-track Tandberg TD-20A. But tape has a dirty little secret that some of its advocates overlook, and that’s the difficulty of recording HF at high levels, which is mostly a consequence of tape’s bias current. If you look at tape deck specs or test results, you’ll see that FR is typically spec’d at -10dB for reel and -20dB for cassette. The closer you get to 0 VU, the harder it is to preserve HF. And that may explain why tape dubs remove some nasties, whether from LP or digital.
I purchased an R2R on eBay for $1100, a nice Revox B77. Plugged it in operated for about 30 seconds before a 7-Up can inside the unit opened (pitsssstt) and smoke came out of the top of the unit. UGG! The seller gave me $300 to keep it. I invested another $200 and had the unit lovingly restored in Denver at Electric City Repair. Wonderful! I had never owned a reel to reel before, although I bought my first hi-fi in 1983. I am rank amateur musician, I play synthesizer. I have had a nice Tascam CD recorder for many years. I had purchased it to record LPs. They sound terrible even when recorded from a really nice turntable directly to CD, harsh, and so do my synth recordings. I purchased the real to reel because of its abilities to dampen that harshness. With all the other stuff that goes with it I paid about $2000. It works very well, sounds great, and I’ll soon have an entry on SoundCloud. @luvrockin do it! It’s fussy. But the result is fantastic sounding. Everyone else already answered your questions about tape availability.
I run a RT-707 in my office system and am enjoying it. I can vouch for ATR as a tape source in terms of customer service and quality. Haven’t had any issues.
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.
yes the recorders of LP are hearing gain and a bit of EQ effect, I figured this out s my German 4 track Dokorder and Denon TT In 1978... it made A needle drop of The Band - Rock of Ages “ jucier” as you say Bill... louder is better is HOW the brain is wired... i figured it out... but it came with some minus....
i would take a Revox B-77x, the poor mans Studer over many other decks, especially when considering parts availability.. but sure Studer is the Pro line ( which machine is more likely to be worn thin ??? )
Revox... even the lowly A-77 was Good enough for Dylan and The Band ( basement tapes )....and it comes with a carry handle, but typically not high speed...
i will say Royers into Fern into Revox at high speed can edge out the same chain into a WADIA 17, etc in some dimension...
As I have said I am very happy with the results from my humble Sony TC-645 recording streamed hires music from Quboz at 7.5ips.
A very budget deck for sure but it somehow gives the music a little warmth and life that appears to be missing on the stream.
Call this distortion and an unfaithfull reproduction if you will I truly do not care, it is my ears and my equipment.
Been using some Ampex Professional 641 tape that I bought a job lot of on the Bay, new and sealed. Do not really know whether this is good or bad tape but it records well enough for my needs.
@benjie- I didn't read that review, but i've heard some of the high end decks as sources using tapes sourced from masters. Some are just spectacular. There is a very 'filled in' sound and even with a top tier turntable, less of a sense of a machine running. Greg has been at the forefront of this revival of reel to reel as a source and is a very nice guy. I don't know if Robin Wyatt still uses tape- he had a Stellavox modified by Charlie King, using a Frankenpreamp cobbled together from old Levinson parts playing a Starker performance of that Kodaly piece for solo cello over a pair of old Quads. Myles played me a bunch of tapes on his system, which is top notch- it was pretty 'whoa'- especially on complex stuff where the LP tends to get a little congested- large orchestral passages. @orpheus10 - since the copy can't really be better than the source it is taken from, in your case, an LP, I'm wondering if you are hearing the effects of increased gain or juiciness through the tape process, including the tape preamp. @cleeds- clearthink did suggest that tape was inferior. I don't think I have much more to contribute but will watch this thread with interest. regards, bill hart
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
