Reel to Reel decks

Mikelavigne, how many reel to reel tape decks do you have at present?

Mikelavigne, is your technics 2 track or 4 track. Which ones are direct drive?

One always uses headphones when making a tape. Vibration degrades all analog. If you are playing a record, and listening at the same time, the sound is degraded to a minute degree. If you record in silence, this does not occur.

I have a Technics reel to reel. I use it to record my vinyl. I recomend Revox because you can still get parts; although I have never had a problem with the Technics.

T_bone, I have never read more "gobbledegook" in my life. You should have been a lawyer. I believe you wrote my last divorce papers.

Although I have two reels, I concur with others. Tape is expnsive, put your computer hardrive to work for recording.

Since bumblebees were told they can't fly, they could explain this phenomenon better than anybody.

While I stated tape is expensive, I now realize, that is relative. There is no better quality of stereo reproduction than reel to reel tape. My tapes are better than the original source. But that comes at a price; my tapes are half track, which means one way on 1/4 inch tape.

T_bone, I am very glad you picked that nit. A bumble bee aint supposed to be able to fly; it's "theoretically" impossible. What I stated is "theoretically" impossible. However, when I record a CD on my 2 track Technics reel to reel; it becomes the same as a perfect analog record, and sounds much better than the original. As a matter of fact, the playback even increases the apparent size of the speakers.

Handyman, where are you? If you are going to buy pre recorded tapes, they are very expensive, and blank tape is not cheap. Are you still interested in a reel to reel?

T_bone, I decided to explain my statement "The playback is better than the source"
Most decks record "forward" and "reverse", they do this by utilizing 4 tracks on the 1/4 tape. A 2 track uses the entire width of the tape in one forward sweep. The tape heads are wider, hence the sound is bigger. This is equivilent to looking at a photograph under a magnifying glass; same photograph, just bigger. Bigger is better.

Mikelavigne, can you discribe the audible difference between 2 track and 4 track playback?

Mikelavigne, "Wider bandwidth, greater dynamic range, and correspondingly lower noise level" than 4 track. If we assume that high quality 4 track sounds as good as the source, if 2 track sounds better than 4 track; it has to sound better than the source.

Andy_P, my 2 track Technics 1500, has new transistiors, pinch rollers, and the capacitors were replaced with "Black Gates". There might be a difference between your deck and mine.

Mikelavigne, when I described my recording ritual, "headphones and recording in silence"; you understood that as my reason for "playback better than source phenomenon". (my fault) I will now describe and give my reasons for this phenomenon.
This only occurs with 2 track reel at a speed of 7 1/2 IPS or higher. This is partially the result of tape width. A cassette has narrow tape, a reel has wider tape. Most reels record in 2 directions; they use 1/2 the tape in the forward, and the other half of the tape in the reverse direction. 2 track uses the complete width of the tape in one direction. If you can compare the difference in the sound of a cassette and a reel, you will see where I am going with this. The sound of a reel is bigger and fuller, this is before we get to 2 track. If you have not carefully observed this difference, it will be impossible for you to conceive the "Phenomenon, playback better than source", with 2 track.
Audio "phenomenon" in the "hi end" must be heard to be believed. Before I became an "Audiophile", I thought they were crazy people who had more money than sense. After I went to a "hi end" emporium, I became one. Logic and reason can lead to conclusions that are shockingly wrong. Some phenomenon have to be witnessed.
Fish swim, birds fly, tigers hunt; I am an "Audiophile", I listen.

Enjoy the music

Petepappp, I just got some new Rhino CD's of some old recordings; these are recordings I heard in the 50's. They have never sounded this good; it's like I can walk among the musicians. This has to do with the recording process, and nothing to do with the "digital analog debate".

Mikelavigne, apparently, we are seriously trying to communicate as opposed to proving a point.
Let us go to photography. If you magnify an excellent photo, it will be bigger. My playback on the 2 track is "bigger" than the original, also the electronics in the reel have been upgraded. The playback is equivilant to an equipment upgrade. Is "bigger" better?

Mikelavigne, while I am not familiar with your other decks, the RS 1500 is a professional deck that can be worked on. It looks industrial on the inside; new electronics are easy to install. New pinch rollers are a good idea, if still available.
Enjoy the music.

I suppose if I threw in, "Maxell XLII, Position "EE" tape into this equation, that would realy "discombobulate" some minds. With this tape, the soundstage is so "holographic", that you feel as though you can walk among the musicians.

Mitch4t, I'm with you. I bought that tape ages ago retail. There is no way I would pay what they are asking, and it's not even new.

Inna, I would pick two track at 7.5. Somehow the image seems bigger with two track.

Make sure you can get parts and service before you buy.

I had an Akai, and parts were hard to get in the 70's.

I have a dream, it's called EE tape. I still have some, but it's mixed in with the rest of the reels, and I have a bunch. There's no way to tell EE tape by looking at it, I can only tell it's EE when I hear it. Dummy that I am, I forget to put a big EE sign on the box.

I wonder if all the reel owners requested EE tape, would they make us a batch. You ain't heard nothing, until you hear a recording made on EE tape. Cheapskate that I was, I bought it to record at a slower speed, and get the same results as a higher speed with regular tape.