Reel to Reel decks

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.

Otari two track. Great pro deck easy to find used and, I believe, they still make it. Yes Ebay is a great start, but consider antique stores and estate sales. The rca stereo classical tapes are amazing. That would be where I would put my money. Liberty records put out some killer music by Martin Denny and Arthur Lymann. You might get lucky and find some Julie London. Happyhunting!

However, if the objective is best quality music, then keeping it pure can actually limit the artistic flexibility of the musician/engineer/producer.

I would only suggest that what would appear obvious about digital editing and endless effects and plugins.. this can and actually in most cases takes the music away from the musician themselves and puts it into the digital plethora of endless possibilities which can ultimately hinder the music.

Brian Eno once said "it is not about having more options, it is about having more USEFUL options"

The temptation to over produce is VERY REAL.. and in my opinion hinders the process of creating truly great music which is really best when it is actually being performed by the artists.

Dylan didn't need a lot of studio trickery, and if you love more complex music.. bands like YES and early Genesis just simply had great musicians that where also very creative in the studio environment. But sometimes less is more.. and striving for a better take can actually produce a more heartfelt track than using pitch shifters, and quantizing drum tracks, fixing the mix in protools and so forth.

I suggest that the pressure of having to perform on your instrument properly can lead to better recordings or even great ones.

For us that know... most records these days are created in a very dishonest way. Before the digital age.. I think recordings were much more honest.. and that ultimately transmits to the listener whether they consciously know the recording process or not.

Digital effects can't help but sound digital.
Samples sound like samples and plugins sound like plugins.

If the best sound quality is the primary objective, then I agree you should keep the recording purely analog throughout the recording/manufacturing process. It will sound better. However, if the objective is best quality music, then keeping it pure can actually limit the artistic flexibility of the musician/engineer/producer. I think most people favor flexibility over purity and are only trying to achieve good to very good, not great, quality sound.

I never play my most valuable records after I made a recording. I don't use RTR yet, I use Nakamichi deck. If I ruin those records by accident they will be almost impossible or very expensive to replace, or both. Good for me that I don't have many of those.

Astralography, I agree on the need to use analog from one end to the other in the recording process.

When my band has released its LPs, although they had set up the studio before I joined the group, none of them had experience editing a master with a razor blade so I wound up with that task. Fortunately there was not a lot of that to do- we did our recordings 'live' which is to say while we did use a multi-track recorder, we did not do any over-dubs.

We kept 24-bit backup digital files too, scanned at double the redbook frequency to avoid the use of a brickwall filter. Compared to the 2-channel analog tape, the digital files essentially fall flat on their respective faces.

Astralography,

Three letters: AAA

From T.H.E. Show, Newport Beach (where the best sonics where evident in rooms featuring RTR and vinyl and where RTR, vinyl, and digital formats were front-end options).

True that about vinyl. Think about it as a long term archive only vinyl discs will stand the test of time. Sure they must be properly stored but they will be playable at any time in the future with a simple turntable and playback stylus.

Analogue tape is a convenient archive of analogue but it will degrade worse as time passes compared to vinyl. Yes, if you use a good tape medium and proper storage you will get good long term storage with analogue tape.

Digital storage be it on an optical disc, hard disc or flash card will likely not be playable unless you routinely recopy it as time passes. Not only is there fear of a hard disc failure but if your playback machine lacks the ability to read and play what would inevitably be obsolete storage medium you could wind up having a properly stored digital medium setup that just wont be able to be read by any future computer play back set up.

I'll just toss in one other thing here I have recently found out in the last few weeks. In the recording world today, most of the analog "purists" are still missing the point because "most" of them are using tape machines only for tracking and not mix down. They are tracking on a tape machine, but then dumping those tracks into a computer software program such as "Pro Tools" and then continue to hack up and edit the mixes to death.

A "true purist" would mix onto another tape machine.. preferably a high quality two track (half track) open reel, then use that tape to make any cuts or splices with the good old fashion razor blade on the splicing block. That tape would act as a master and a couple clones would be made from that such as one for a safely backup and one to be sent off to the vinyl cutting lathe. The bigger pro studios would use 2" tape usually Studer machines and smaller studios could still release excellent quality product mixing down onto 1/2 tape or even 1/4 inch tape stereo masters.

I don't know how many artists are doing it the right way anymore, I would guesstimate very very few.

People seem to think that they are saving their music by safely dumping it into a computer.. and that their will be no generation loss..

However..

What people forget is that the initial analog to digital conversion is very destructive and remember, it must be converted AGAIN back out of digital format to be understood by our very human ANALOG ears. So it gets hit twice.

I would not fear two generations of analog tape conversions to get something pressed on vinyl which is now "ironically" being hailed actually as the best possible format for archiving music (about 100 years)

CD life span is suggested at about 30 years max.

Astralography,

Very well written & I couldn't agree more.
Thanks for the great explanation.

Astralography, thanks for your spot-on observations.

I'll just give my two cents here.

I have been an artist and producer for a good quality artistic label, but have been recording in the digital world since the early 90's.

Mistake

I have personally been a vinyl junkie as long as I have been old enough to listen to music and still am to this day. I always tried to get a warmer thicker richer sound on my recordings than my digital peers, often to either the praise or harsh criticism from the press. A couple years ago I upgraded my entire personal system with a decent Music Hall deck, restored vintage Scott Tube amp and a set of basically modified Forte II's. It was certainly enough to get me to open my eyes and face a new reality.

The label was kind enough to now supply me with a 16 track Tascam tape machine which I have been laying demos on for the last few months.

Wow, is all I can say.
Demos already sound 10 times better than finished digital mixes of the past.

Anyone that suggests that digital recording or playback is superior simply is speaking from a platform of ignorance, and I say this with all due respect. You have to be able to hear a recording played back properly on a quality analog set up to make an educated statement. As a recording artist, you have to have had your work recorded properly AND have heard it played back PROPERLY to make an educated assessment.

If you have been presented with the two mediums properly, you will of course understand the superiority of an unadulterated analog stream.

Now, not to get off topic here.. but unless an artist has been recorded direct to vinyl, tape machines are the best vehicle to record music... period.

So I would argue that a recording that was recorded onto tape, mixed, pressed onto vinyl, them sent back out to a tape machine is not going to improve the sound. It may add a certain tape compression of the signal that may sound pleasing to some, but it is not better in a technical sense. Not possible.

One of the problems facing listeners today is that they are so used to music that is over processed in the digital world, that a proper recording might sound too raw or human.

There are so many options for digital recording artists in the way of processors, plugins, simulators, filters and so on, and young artists seem almost brainwashed to use them.

I would counter and say that if you have a properly tuned instrument, a good quality instrument, play your part well, and have it miked properly direct to a tape machine, you really don't have to do ANYTHING to it. If you are tracking, your mixing board really only has to be used to set volume levels, and a pan fader to place the sound where you want it in a stereo mix. You really shouldn't have to even use EQ.....IF you have recorded the track properly.
The only thing you might want to compress a little bit might be an electric bass guitar a kick drum and some vocalists.

HOWEVER,

If you mic things properly, and you are recording to tape, you have access to such a full dynamic range that you really don't need to compress at all if you don't want to.

It's a subjective thing.. but if there are any recording artists here reading.. you shouldn't HAVE to...

Drummers recording to click tracks in my opinion is still controversial. There is no reason to take a GOOD drummer out of his groove. Humans are not machines.. some ebb and flow is OK.

The digital world is so in love with quantitizing the drum tracks to the nearest 8th note editing them on a computer screen, and usually pulling out and replacing the drummers actual kick and snare drums with stock samples that the producer THINKS sound better. So what we get is a sterile, lifeless over processed homogenized sound that has been spoon fed to the public since the early 80's.

The temptation to FIX everything in the pre mix down production room is just too damn tempting and it ends up getting hacked up with 400 edits and we get what we get.

The great thing about a reel to reel is that it's actually it's LIMITATIONS that open the possibilities to a better record. I say this because in the old days, musicians had to PRACTICE to lay tracks because punching is not as easy on a tape machine, especially with drummers. You try to punch on the cymbal crashes, and if you miss just a bit it doesn't sound good. Sure tape loops have been used and other studio trickery but nothing like what goes on now.

Tape is expensive, and you feel a bit of pressure when those reels are spinning, much more than endless digital takes. Analog tape can only take so many runs across the recording heads before they have to be cleaned or the tape starts losing fidelity.

It asks more of you.

So the best way to both record and playback music is going to be tape machines.

You simply cannot take a dynamic tape recorded performance and dither it down to 16 or 24 bit transferring analog to digital and back through analog converters working full steam and expect a proper playback on CD.

NO

If you love digital music, then good for you, but you won't win any "quality" arguments with someone that knows better.

I took the Akai beast to Fred at Classic Audio Repair in San Diego. He confirmed what several have said (parts, etc.). He recommended I ditch it and get Teac, unless I wanted to make it a personal project. I may Craigslist for a low amount as "parts or repair." The take-up reel alone is pretty cool.

Well, it works. A local record shop had a box of free reel tapes (home recorded). Turns out, many of them were actually sealed blank tapes. Nice windfall. I'm looking forward to checking this guy's Ink Spots recording against my cd. Unfortunately, the left channel is practically inaudible. I may take it into the shop for that. The right channel sounded fine. I can hear the record scratches from the home recording, but they were free, so . . .

Thanks again for the helpful responses.

I'll check that stuff out, Atma. :)

M.

If you want to lubricate any bearing set in most tape machines, an excellent lubricant for the job is Dextron-style automatic transmission fluid. Usually only a few drops are required.

A common problem in many Japanese tape machines is the pinch roller arm that activates the pinch roller. It can get gummed up by the grease that was used when the machine was built. Quite often by now such greases have turned to a pretty effective glue! Another area where this is a problem is the reel brakes which are often activated by a common lever.

@Poprhetor,

I know of an Akai R2R for sale right now at a vintage shop...i don't think it's too expensive actually i don't think he knew what it was worth at all. The unit works through and through, if you need parts or want to replace let me know and i'll msg you the details.

Cool man, let us know how it goes with it. I have a Revox A77 & a Technics 1506 and I really enjoy messing around with tape.. so what if it's a bit anochronistic :)

There are a few other boards you can check out for some RTR info. A dedicated one called Tapeheads.net comes to mind, also the Tape Trail forum at the AA (doesn't get a lot of action these days, but there are some very experienced folks who lurk over there). Also, places like the Bottlehead/Tape Project board and the stevehoffman.tv boards have some really nice and informative RTR minded people on them as well.

Good luck with it! M

That's pretty much where I'm at with it, Marchameslice. I'll post my results on this thread when I get to the project, since this thread is truly one of the few sources for kind of info. Many thanks again.

Michael

Listen to Orpheus10. Akai made some nice decks, but the parts are notoriously difficult to source and Akai's don't compare too favorably in both the sound and maintenance departments to Revox, Teac, Pioneer, Tandbergs, etc.

It's awesome to have a cool, gifted heirloom, but resale & if it will see serious use are always considerations when thinking of refirbing and esp. spending to refirb vintage gear.

If you just want to have a lark, why don't you just hit it hard with the contact cleaner and see what you have on your hands first?

The only reason I could think of to let a pro do it is that there are lots of rubber parts in this machine. I don't know how they'll react to the proshot or any other mix of lube/solvent.

Thanks for the tip. I typically use Pro-Shot 1 Step Gun Cleaner and Lubricant as a general household oil-based lubricant. Any reason I should use something else?

I would open up the back and try to get some oil on anything in there that moves, especially capstans and such. Blow out all the dust, clean whatever contacts and surfaces you can. Then try out a tape.

I was playing my old Teac 2340SX this past weekend. What a nice, natural, analogue sound, even though there is tape hiss at the top end. Oh well, you can't have everything.

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

Thanks for the responses, guys. I'll be chewing my lip for awhile on this one. I don't have anything to test it with yet. I guess that's step two. We'll see how it goes.

Hello Poprhetor,

Congrats :-) Community theatre...very hip. It might be a fun project to restore your R2R as well as a genuine challenge. Either way, I think you'll benefit and enjoy the journey.

Regards,
Sam

Akai was I think a rebranded Roberts. Man, that's going BACK.

If it turned on without smoking, give the mechanism a try.

If it is a '3-motor' the mechanicals will be somewhat less complex than say....my Tandberg 3000x which is a single motor drive that has no pressure pads. The feed reel gets a little 'backspin' from the motor. The mechanism looks like a giant watch.
It'd cost 300 or 400$ to get it back in shape.

If the Akai surges or has any signs of rust or decay, get it serviced. Any rubber parts can decay, too. Pulleys and drive belts.

I have no idea about parts or service, but it is probably available to the person with deep pockets. I found a site which has a selection of serviced R-2-R and will work on your machine.

Want a DBX compressor / expander? Pretty much the DBX version of an external Dolby. I don't know if it works, but free is free!

I thought about starting a new thread, but I don't think there's enough interest to warrant it. Anyway, my dad showed up at Easter with a reel-to-reel for me. I'd asked him awhile back if he still had any around. We ran a community theater in the 80's and 90's, and we used reel-to-reel to run sound before switching to digital. I told him I wasn't picky--I just wanted one if he was looking to get rid of them anyway. I assumed he would unload plastic Teac that they bought somewhere around 1990. Turns out he gave that one and others away to community theaters over the years.

There was one left, apparently. He showed up with this massive box that weighs a ton. It's old and rather messy, but way cooler than anything I recall. Which is to say, I don't remember this thing at all. It's an Akai Cross-Field X-355D. He said they bought it used rather expensively when they first opened the theater and then replaced it fairly quickly--I doubt it's seen action since 1985 (much like his 1978 Peugot 103 moped, which is in similar condition and currently decorating my front porch). The sealed Maxell 35-90 recording tape is a nice bonus, only one reel though.

How should I proceed? It turns on, but I hear stuff turning inside. Should I open this thing up and give it a going over with Deoxit? Should cease all further action and have it properly serviced? I caught the link at the beginning of this thread for the Project, so I'll check it out. I'm just accustomed to coming here for audio advice first, since I already know I like the environment. :) Curious how this thing will do with my passive pre . . .

I'm not sure if I missed anyone saying it but there is a beauty and coolness to RTR decks. Its the same sort of thing that makes someone buy one piece of gear over another. You cannot rule out how the gear looks.

Its been a lot of years since I owned a RTR deck and I miss it. I just like threading the tape and the excellent sound quality to a decent RTR deck. I believe the Tape Project started out charging $200 per release when the site was first put up. I guess they found more than a few customers.

I agree with MikeL that the only way to get the best from any media is the original. To that end a high speed dup of a 2 track stereo master should be the best us mortals could do. If properly done it should be superior to any LP (considering the multiple steps a LP goes through before vinyl is pressed).

Of course that presumes that the same care is taken at each step of production for both the RTR dup and the LP.

Ed

Tony, just saw your schematic and will follow that thread to read comments from other studer owner's, I watch with interest, external playback electronics is expensive (bottlehead is the most accessible with eros kit) so to see diy is very exciting and inspiring. I know many upgrade existing circuits and for me that is my diy level although I have not tried yet. Thank you Tony for sharing with us on this thread and elsewhere, it is very much appreciated (all input is appreciated, I thank all of you for sharing your experiences with your machines)

Andy

Hi Andy
I also did modification on a Revox PR99, just changed all the coupling cap to Solen fast cap about 10 caps out-put change to monitor out and a CCIR/NAB switch that can play Tape Project's tape,three years ago, with very good result, of cause there are no room for those big caps, I had took off all the record PCB to get room, I will show pictures later
tony ma

Hi Tony,

I just saw your modified studer tube output electronics on the what's best f-rum, it looks like you did a great job and hope to someday be able to get to that diy level with one of my own decks.

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

Studer A810 is a very popular model it come out from radio station or studio mostly, this gear look like a digital machine more than a analog one it has a digital CPU to control the whole thing, but make sure the built in recharge battery still work, that is the power supply for the CPU after switch off, price will be very bargain compare to it's golden time

I hope it's not too self promoting, but there is also an Otari for sale on Audiogon...

Thank you both. Well, there is Studer A-810 here for sale - a bit too much; would be a great choice, I guess. There is also Technics RS-1500 on ebay that plays 4 track tapes in addition to 2 track play/record; and Revox PR99.

The best is 15/ 2 track, but not too many soft wear to choose tape project or record your own, next 7.5/ 2 track, you still can get some pre-recorded tapes from E-bay, sound recording quality very good but 30 to 40 years old stuff depend how it keep. 7.5/4 track, more tapes in the market, good sound as vinyl's sound. 3.75/4 track, still better than CD

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

When it comes to reel to reel I know nothing. Could you people tell me which one would sound better, assuming the same model of course - two track at 7.5 ips or four track at 15 ips? In other words, speed or tape width?

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.

.
I don't think I'll be taking that walk among the musicians after all. It seems that a used reel of the Maxell tape mentioned above is about $65. Extra if you want it bulk erased. That walk is a little too rich for my blood.
.

Digital technology is doing successfully in vision and communication, when CD was doing great because at that time most people listen to cassette tape and low level vinyl system in solid state amp, but after people found out CD with tube was much better then tube gear came back, later high level vinyl system with tube amp can beat most of CD so that is why most of the high end market full of vinyl system now. reel to reel machine is no more on production now, a pro machine like Studer is very bargain in price even less than a small mid level cartridge but most machine in transistor amp, now people try to play with tube again, I believe this will be top of all in sound quality, the only problem is the source, tape your own is one of the way

.
You guys kill me. Just when I think I'm "there", someone mentions the "Maxell XLII, Position "EE" tape with its holographic imaging. Now, I want to "take a walk among the musicians". I am so curious and I really want to experience that sensation. All of this means more money for a good tape machine, and even more money for the surely expensive Maxell blank tapes. I started reading this thread for the hell of it because I owned a reel to reel machine a long time ago. I wanted to see what the dinosaurs of hifi were discussing, since of course tape and tape machines were supposed to be long since obsolete. It's been 25 years since I've had a reel to reel machine, and I knew that I'd never look back, much less go back. I must admit this thread has been very informative and very intriguing. Now I'll get to work doing my homework on finding a suitable machine. Thanks to all of you for the info you've provided for me to re-discover reel to reel. Then again, no thanks to all of you for the money it's going to cost me to get re-involved. I'm just thinking of the money than I could have saved if I'd never read this thread.
.

Hi Andy, although I am not pro but I learned some from the pro , if you have 1/2" tape then better use as the master, store in reverse condition (fast forward first and record and store, time to play back same fast forward first and play, that will keep tape better for longer), for more copies, dub from the master to a dub master in a 1/4 , in making copies better dub in same speed (you can use fast speed for less time but in quality down a little bite ) those small sound quality different can be notice only by higher level play back system or by people's individuality. try more different things to do in recording for to get the answers maybe we can as good as the pro's doing sometime

Hi Tonykyma, I also don't have a background in pro audio recording. In my post I mentioned 14" 1/2 track but meant 1/4" 1/2 track. With the nagra I like that it is portable and opens up more opportunity for recording (the iv-l can take two mics). I think making your own live recordings would be both very challenging and exciting, I am looking forward to learning.

Something that I have been wondering about that is not obvious to me but also addresses some of the discussion in this thread is about making dubs of say master tapes. It has been debated that a dub cannot be better than the original and I leave that for others to debate. My question is suppose I have a 1/4" 1/2 track master and I want to make a dub. Let's say the master is fragile and valuable (only want to play it once to make a dub for example). If I make a dub I would want to use that dub to make other play copies (so my dub would be my working master). My thought is that it would be better to make my master dub onto 1/2" 1/2 track rather than 1/4" 1/2 track. My thought is that subsequent dubs would be better from the 1/2" tape than a 1/4" tape with less chance of loss? It seems intuitively correct but I don't have any experience to verify that (I don't have 1/2" heads but they are available for my machines).

Hi Andy we are not pro just for fun still a lot to learn, We did used two systems in the same Mic and amp in the same time digital and analog in recording. result in best of cause is master tape but the CD recorded after from the master tape still better than the direct recorded in the same digital recorder (Tascam), maybe my play back system are good for analog more than digital (all tube amps in 4 ways horn system) tape recorder of cause the most important in recording but Mic and pre amp also change the level of quality even the Mic's cable too, really a lot of things for try and learn!

Tonykyma, I have to say I am moving in this direction. I have a nagra iv-l full track 1/4" and seeing that head coverage makes me realize the potential (not using yet, waiting for a pinch roller). I have some 14" 1/2 track masters and they are an eye opener in terms of what is possible the closer you get to the original tape (these are just people that recorded some music and not people that are known). But the results are obvious. I keep thinking, lets see, my sister can play a violin and does play in some groups, my dad knows some old country songs that I could record, why not just make some high quality recordings to listen to?

The best sounding source must be master tape, the best sounding recorded tape in market is the third copies from the master tape like Tape project's product and I don't know how many generations from the master were those before 1970's 4 track 7.5ips tapes but if you have a good machine they still sound better than vinyl but hard to keep in good condition, so if you looking the top sound quality in play back, then create your own master tape, buy a pro machine like Studer(price are really bargain today) and a pair pro Mic with tube pre amp record live music will have a perfect sound in play back

FWIW, you don't want to just 'change tape' for a different sound (unless maybe you are looking for an effect??). To get the best out of the machine, if you use a different formulation the machine should be calibrated properly to use that tape. Otherwise you will get frequency response and distortion colorations.

I think you are right, along with the different media, "or quality thereof, 100% agree with Maxell high bias tape comment", I think there are a number of factors that can be involved in a great recording. Digital recordings of high definition files on superior media, ie. "Japanese Taiyo Yuden cd media", can also produce amazing results. Different copies of the same vinyl pressing can sound entirely different,variations in the pressing process I suppose. Equipment compatibility I'm sure is a factor. The interesting part of this discussion for me is maximizing results,while dealing with an industry that produces recordings for the masses and generally not for audiophiles. Listening to the recording,the equipment, and the music, I'm guilty.

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".