Travis In Austin

that is a great deck SETI, Does it work? What tape was that in the photo? Buddy Holly on Coral? Travis

The news continues to be encouraging. https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/96937-how-vinyl-got-its-groove-back/page-2?hl=%2Bvinyl+%2Bsales#entry1058994 Travis

Welcome, welcome, welcome. You will really enjoy it here, a great group of people. Travis

I have been collecting since I was about 10, so about 40 years. About 500 prerecorded reel to reel tapes, I started with about 25 from my Dad, and the remainder would be about 90/10. Some I purchased new when they were still available? Then, more recently some new ones from The Tape Project, but the vast majority used because they are not really made anymore like vinyl still is. LPs, about 3,000 but I am going to downsize that down to 1,000 because of, as you say, the space. I would say at least 50 percent of those I bought new. I try to buy local whenever I can from my locally owned record store, whether new or used, and I try to find it new locally before looking elsewhere. I was able to get 2010 Zeppelin box set locally, I have Beatles mono set due out in September on preorder locally. Now the big question, how many of those 2,165 LPs did you purchase? It seems like all of the digital files I have, maybe 30, we're a free down load, or included with an lp purchase. I wish I could convert all of this wax to digital, but it would just take an eternity and I am not going to kill myself to do it, I guess I just like being able to hold an lp or tape box and read the packaging. Travis

PCB's in Russian PIO's? Hmmmmm, that may explain a lot about Thebes[][] Back to my freshly brewed Salada iced tea. Travis

In my post above I was wondering how much of what I heard through Rigma's system was the preamp/amp vs the analog crossover. I thought it was the best sound I heard compared the solid state amps and digital crossovers but was thinking what I was liking was mostly the great pre/amp (even the brand of tubes was top notch) as opposed to the crossovers, which I felt were only making a minor difference. If I am understanding you correctly in the quote above you would agree with that? To follow up on that, what would you say would be more of an improvement on the Jubes, TAD drivers or going to analog crossovers? Thanks Travis

This was the original poster's original question: I think CASK gave a direct answer to this, that other then Rigma and Dean G, he wasn't aware of anyone being able to tell the difference between music through a a digital crossover and an analog crossover. I listened to Jubilees through Rigma's analog crossovers, with 300b tube amps, as compared to digital crossovers, both Crown amps with builtin crossovers and a DX38 with solid state amplification, and I much prefered the sound of rigma's system. I wish I had a pair of his crossovers but I don't have the technical know how to build them. I might add that the source for all of these comparisons was a CD player that cost under $100.00. We may have stuck in a better CD player when we listened to Rigma's crossovers, but I don't recall as it has been so long ago. So I don't know if what I prefered about Rigma's system was the crossovers, the tube amplificatio, tube preamp, or if it was a combanation of all three. I would like to think that I have heard enough 300b tube systems that I can say that I think a lot of what I was hearing was in his amp and pre-amp and only a small amount was attributable to the crossovers, but that is pure speculation. I have never had the opportunity to listen to an identical set up with the only difference being the crossovers, digital vs. analog. I think in a very pure analog system, if you are one of those that can tell the difference between a CD and a LP being played then you might be able to notice the difference between an analog crossover vs. a digital one. I generally prefer the sound of analog in two track listening, especially prerecorded high quality tape, but I don't believe that the digital crossovers take away from the analog "warmth" that most people prefer when they say they have a preference. I too would be curious as to what others think, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, what, if any, real listening difference there is between digital and analog crossovers. That is same analog source, same preamp, same amp, etc., etc. As to all of the other comments on digital vs. analog in general, it is never going to be solved here but here are a few comments in response to what some others have said. As far as quotes, my favorite on digital vs. analog came from a recording artist, with superior hearing due to his disability, who owned his own state of the art recording studio called RPM. He said this: “I have to tell you man. In listening to sound, I guess what I’m after is the closest thing that I can get to reality. Now, I know it’s not going to be reality, cause the thing gotta go through wires and gotta go through filters and this and that. I understand all that. But what I really like is to get as close to the natural sound of the instruments as possible. That’s why I like analog as opposed to digital. Because I don’t give a s**t what anybody tells you man, I know what you guys are going to tell me…’Oh yeah, but it’s clean Ray!’ Well it’s clean but it don’t got no balls!!!” – 1999 interview with Ray Charles by Michael Hobson of Classic Records As far as tape to tape transfer distortion, it has really been a non-issue since the time of 1" tape and beyond. If you read Recording the Beatles by Kevin Ryan or Emerick"s, Here There And Everywhere, you will see that The Beatles' first two lp's were recorded on two track 1/4" tape, with tracks bounced up and down sometimes in excess of 50 times. What EMI's speciality was at the time was to be able to bounce tracks and overdub numerous times with a minimal amout of noise and in such a way that it greatly exceeded the noise floor. By the era of the 70's with multitrack recorders, and tapes capable of being saturated at 9+ db without distortion the issue of distortion, degradation, etc. from going from the original tracking tape all the way to the mastering tape was a non-issue. It can't be heard with good equipment and proper recording techniques. Here is a Youtube video of Bernie Grundman, whom everyone should have heard of, talking about mastering and that he wants the original tracking hardrive iwhenever possible because a copy, in any form, DVD, CD, degrades the sound. This seemed odd to me, since digital should be the same regardless if it is the original hardrive, a copy of that HD, a DVD, or a CD. However, I have seen him speak on this several times and he is very strong in his view that a copy of the HD results in degraded sound. The AES position on this, discussed below, supports his conclusion. They say deliever the original tracking HDD in Broadcase Wave format in a protective padded case. For a another good discussion about digital vs. analog in recording and mastering here is a youtube clip from Greg Calbi who should need no introduction either. I believe this is the consensus you will find in the recording industry today, there are advantages and disadvantages to both digital and analog and you really need to see what is going to work best for the project you are doing. Both of those youtube videos were part of the ArtistsHouseMusic project and for those who are really interested in accurate information about in digital vs.analog, at the RECORDING/MIXING/MASTERING stage, by people who really do this for a living and are considered to be the top in the industry, there are a number of videos worth looking at as part of the 2,000 videos they have on file. The above two are a couple of good examples of what you can find there. For an excellent discussion of the advantages of digital and analog, with compairsons YOU CAN LISTEN TO, between the tape and digital recordings here is a link. http://recordinghacks.com/2013/01/26/analog-tape-vs-digital/ As this article suggests, even today in the digital age and with all of the advantages of Pro Tools, a great many engineers will record, at a minimum, drums to tape, because digital just cannot capture it the way tape does. This is called hybrid recording, the drums are recorded to tape and then put into Pro Tools as a digital track. This is even done directly through CLASP (closed loop analog signal processor). There have been plugins created for Pro Tools to try and duplicate the sound of drums recorded on tape, but in reading what industry professionals have to say, these plugin have all come up short and so a great many recordings being done today use a hybrid approach. Here is yet again another video from Music industry giant Joe Galante, former President of Sony/BMG on "Why CLASP with analog tape is so important" for record labels and music artists today. This is hybrid recording, using both digital and analog technology, using the advantages of each. Here is a 2010 article from Mix Magazine, one of the leading US Publications on the technical aspects of the recording industry, discussing with four current recording engineers why they prefer tape/analog, and how they are using both Pro Tools and tape. http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/analog_tape_back//index.html The latest greatest thing in digital recording is backing up the hardrives. Several recording companies have run into problems with their high dollar digital recordings, which were done on hard drives, being damaged, or lost all together because of frozen hard drives and other problems. This has become enough of a problem that AES had to come up with a standard and issue a position paper for the standards for delivering digital and analog media to the owner (record company) of the masters, along with the number and type of safeties and the format of the audio (Broadcase Wave File format, "flattened"). The preferred backup/safetie for a hard disk drive is TAPE. Not a CD, not a DVD, but TAPE. Some of the comments I saw in this thread about digital vs. analog go back to the old, never settled, discussion about which is better a cd or an lp. However, some of the comments about analog/tape didn't track with what the current state of recording has been over the last 10+ years. That is, while digital has a number of advantages in terms of changing sound, it has limitations. I think Joe Galante's discussion in his video covers this best. On the other hand, the comments about preferences of analog over digital were someone confusing because they did not specify what recordings they were talking about. I think it was a good idea for Mike L to ask what the recordings were people were referring to when making comparisons. Any recording made from at least the early 90s is probably digital in some respect so I assume when people are comparing a analog recording (SPARS AAA) recording to a CD (which of course is either the same material in either AAD, ADD, DDD or DAD. Those would be the only two things you could compare really, or are people saying that a digitally recorded LP/Vinyl sounds better then a CD assuming both have the same bit and sampeling rates? Does anyone have a CD recorded (not remastered, or reissued) after say 1995 with a SPARS Code that isn't ADD if not DDD? I can't tell from some of the comments if people are saying they can tell the difference between (or prefer) a recording that was recorded onto tape and then digitally mixed and mastered from one that was digitally recorded. I generally listen to music that was made pre 1980s, and I would say, generally, my order of preference is: 1. Prerecorded Reel to Reel tape, if issued 2. LP, subject to multiple versions, issues, etc. 3. SACD (many remastered versions have various tracks, for example, Pet Sounds, has original Mono, real stereo for the first time, etc.) I think I only have on DVD-A and so cannot really comment on that. I would say for the older stuff, pre-digital era, I would agree with those who prefer the analog version. However, anything recorded since 1995 that was recorded digitally, (first letter in the SPARS Code), is there really going to be a difference if it ends up on vinyl at some point? Travis

Well thanks for the vote of confidence but I am not very knowledgable when it comes to video tape, but I am pretty sure that the NAB standard applies to both video and audio tape, but not positive. The advantage with using reels from insturmentation tape and video, if the hubs are in fact the same size, is that they used very rugged AND precision flanges (the metal part of the "reel"). They are thicker than typical audio tape flanges and very flat without wobble. This is why you never want to pick and hold a metal reel by pinching it on sides, it will go out of true. You should always hold them and lift by the the hub, the hole in the middle. Most audio decks can easily accomodate this extra thickness. The disadvangage is that is some cases you cannot exchange these flanges onto a thinnner hub (i.e. 1/4 or 1/2") like you can with most other audio tape. If Cigar has access to to a audio deck with NAB spindles he would be able to see right away if the hole diamater is the same along with the three slots that the hubs slide onto. If so, they are valuable as "percision" reels. However, they don't look as valuable as I thougt, a lot of 16 just like his recently sold on Ebay for $65. If they are convertable to 1/4" hubs that is a real steal for empty percision reels. Precision hubs are easy to spot as they use 5, sometimes 6, screws to secure the flanges to the hubs instead of the typical 3 screws. US Recording sells the screw kits for 1/4" hubs to be able to convert them, however, because of the thinkness and rugged nature of the flanges this sometimes does not work and it of course assumes that you have extra 5 screw 1/4" percision hubs laying around. Travis

Cigarbum, These still have value as empty reels. They appear to be brand new in the box, with NAB hubs, they are worth at least $20 each as empty take up reels. You can probably get a quick buyer for them at the Tapeheads forum. Travis

I have no idea, there were National Guard there. I'm sure Alex Jones or someone of his ilk will have all of the "facts" and low down on if they were there or not. However, Posse Comitatus does not apply to the national guard, and as far as I know, the Guard can assist local law enforcement within a state whether an emergency exists or not. I beleive the Govenor can even request the Guard from another state to assist in law enforcement. There is no requirement that an emergency exist. As far as not doing anything and someone going to a federal facility for several years I have no idea what you are talking about. Travis

It was an absolutly incredible race, facility, and weekend. Quite impressive an all fronts. Would hightly reccomend it to anyone interested in racing. There is nothing like it. Travis

I have really been enjoying the US Grand Prix here at the Circuit of the Americas in Austin, Texas the last two days, and very much looking forward to the race starting here in just less than two hours. I have been to previous USGP's in late 70s and early 80s and this is really something. They need to get the new road built into the track, but other then that, it has really been an incredible weekend so far. Anyone else from Klipsch forums on here besides me. I thought I had heard that Gilbert was going. Next year we will need to get some of you Gearheads down here to enjoy this. Travis

PS: After thinking abot this for a moment, if you have a chance for a refurbished Revox A, I would jump on that. You are getting slightly better frequency response on the bottom end with the Revox, and a little better S/N ratio. I think you will be vrey, very happy with that Revox. Travis

You cannot go wrong with either of those decks. Both very well made, you can still get parts, including pinch rollers direct from Tascam if that is any consideration. One is a four track home audio teck (Revox) and the other is a pro deck that will give you more flexibility on recording. I agree with Larry, and have listened to his deck, the Revox is a nice solid piece of equipment. You will be very happy with either of these decks, but if you have no intention of doing much recording or playing at 15 ips you should probably lean towards the Revox and then you have two decks that can play your 3.75 ips tapes. Is the head wear the same for both decks? Travis

They did develop the state of the art digital reel to reel tape recorder that was the standard of the industry starting in the early 1980s in the the early 90s. They were able to offer 24 and ultimately 48 tracks on 1/2" tape in PCM format. They used time encoding so it was very easy to have 96 available. They used a stationary head as opposed to DAT, which uses a helical rotating head. There was a lot of recordings using their decks with the resolution gettng up to 20 bits at 96 khz. There is a major problem right now, you have to use a Sony to decode it, and those decks, while still in use today, are becoming fewer and far between. The Grammy people, in order to preserve the music that was mastered using digital decks, are asking folks to transfer it back into analog and store it on . . . TAPE. Travis

The Audience is listening . . . TO KLIPSCH!! I just posted: In THX theaters there is usually a trailer that plays right before the movie starts that blows your ears off that concludes by saying "The Audience is Listening" Get theaters on new installs to agree to play a trailer before the movie starts which shows off the superb sound and all kinds of effects, professionaly produced. At the end the words come up on screen, "The audience is listening to" and then the Klipsch Logo pops up underneath. I believe there are thousands of people who go to theaters every week who have no idea they are listening to Klipsch. If they like the sound in the theater, they will buy Klipsch speakers for their home and home theater. Travis

Happy too. Take your pick: Saxaphone Collossus Waltz for Debbie Creek Bank I will call you at office if you give me a good time to get address, etc. Travis

Did you ever get this up and running? Very curious to hear what your experience has been with this beautiful restoration. Travis

Well, more like$150 or so for Aqua Lung, but I was close. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Jethro-Tull-Aqualung-Reel-to-Reel-4-Track-Tape-Discrete-7-1-2-IPS-QUADRAPHONIC-/221135766473?pt=Music_Other_Formats&hash=item337cb803c9

HDR, you should be spinning that tape, and I am sure they will be just fine as not exposed to any temp/humidity extreames for very long. Your Jethro Tull Aqualung in quad is worth at least $100, and may have gone for easily in excess of of 200. Quad tapes, on average, command the highest prices on PR tape. Travis

I was going from memory, but I pulled out my Studer Service Manual on the A810, and my numbers were correct. I was using Linear RMS numbers for 30Hz - 20Khz which is the same as the numbers I was using on the other decks. I wanted to keep Apples to Apples. The test report sheets I have from Studer were typically done using RMS A WEIGHTED values. Weighted values, as with all manufacturers, have higher S/N ratios/less noise compared to Linear RMS values. The numbers can vary depending on whether it was done using IEC (CCIR) curve or NAB. You will always have lower ratios/more noise using IEC Eq than NAB, it is just a function of the EQ. But that test report means just about as much as the mileage numbers on a new car unless you have two other pieces of key information. The amount of NanoWebers-per-meter it was recorded at and on what tape; AND, which heads they are talking about on the test. The specs I used were from Repro heads. On prodecks you can also repro through the Record heads, it is how you do sound on sound recordings/Simul Synch. There are differenct specs for Repro heads and records heads on pro decks, and this is true with Studer. The test report should let you know that. I was using 510 nWb/m specs on the numbers in my original post to keep apples to apples and oranges to oranges, it is the whole reason this data is included with the specifications in the Ampex, Otrari and manuals. I could actually get in excess of 76db of S/N from a Studer A810 using Ampex GP--9 and recording at 1040 nWb/m (+9Vu) but it woldn't tell you how it compares to other decks. It is easy to convert the numbers from the test sheet to what it would be equiq. to other recording strength and tape. Every deck with IEC/NAB selectivity will have lower ratios in IEC than in NAB, that is why specs on Pro decks typically list both sets of numbers of each EQ. The S/N Ratio for IEC, which I assume is the curve you are running for Tape Project tapes, @15 IPS, using 510 nWb/m (+8 Vu) the manual says 66db S/N for 15 IPS and 64 db for 7.5 IPS. Those numbers are for regular 2.0 mm heads, not butterfly, but it is not that much of a difference.If your test report was done at 1040 nWb/m those would be extreamely disapointing numbers. So your deck is right at specifications for A Weighted numbers, which equate to 61db RMS linear, which is also from the manual, and the numbers I used to keep apples to apples. And those are impressive numbers, extreamely quiet, but I wanted people to understand you don't need a studio deck to get great sound and no hiss and why Ampex was a standard for so long Ampex. 10db difference is 10x more or less noise. Travis

Bruce, I always really liked that TEAC 3340S, it was pretty much a TASCAM Pro deck.

Boxx and Mallett, Boxx, you have a great deck there! You should keep it. In seeing the discussion about the various decks in this thread it reminded me that it is the "HEADS ARE WHAT MATTERS MOST" (HWMM). Boxx, your deck has some of the best heads ever developed and were used on both their Pro and consumer decks, Glass/Crystal Ferrite. The critical path for tape is obviously first the source itself; that being the tape--the condition it was in, how it was stored, etc. The next step is the heads, and it is the most critical part of the whole chain as far as reproduction is concerned. There is too much about head design and build to go into here but it is what made Ampex the gold standard in recording, not Studer, MCI, 3M, Otari. To compete these companies would either inovate better tape paths (I.e., 3M and Isoloop) or offer a lower cost alternative. Ampex had a whole department of engineers that did nothing but R&D on heads and everyone was chasing them. A few of the asian manufacturers were able to catch up towards the end, Teac/Tascam (they were licensed to build Ampex last machines) and another was Akai. After the heads, but nearly equally as important on a Pro deck, the key is to get the tape to move over the heads in the exact same location, at the exact same speed, over and over again. This is what the transport system does and this is the main difference between Pro and consumer decks. Good Pro decks had to be able to operate all day, going backwards and forwards 100s of times per day. They also have to be easily calibrated for the varous types of tape they had to record on or play back from (calibration is called allignment). You only need to see a Studer A Series deck operate one time to know what a great transport system it has. You can actually hear it and see it with your eyes and ears. The Pro decks had to come up with a compromise between head wear and duribility. It is important if you are getting a Pro deck to use for playing tape at home (Repro) to know what the primary design and use of that particular deck was for. Was the primary purpose mastering, editing, repro quality, recording, playback in radio stations, education, etc? Because, depending on what the purpose was, you are going to either have a compromise in the transport, recording and/or Repro quality. For example, the Studer A810 has one of the best transport systems every built. It has locate and editing functions that are incredible and the machine is very easy to allign. BUT, they only have average Repro/Record specifications. The S/N ratio is 61 db for the regular heads, and only 62 db for the highly prized and sought after Butterfly heads. The 1 db increase in the signal to noise ratio is due to the butterfly heads having a 2.75 mm track width vs the standard 2.0 mm width. Mallett, your beautiful TC-765 has the exact SAME S/N ratio as that, with 4 tracks compared to two tracks on the Studer. A Studer A810 at 7.5 IPS, which is the speed the better precorded tapes play at, has a frequency response of 30Hz to 16Khz. Those are perfectly acceptable numbers for a Pro deck, and at 15IPS the high end jumps to 20Khz on the Studer which is where you want it. But for the person wanting to primarily play 7.5 IPS precorded tapes at home, this is not really the deck to have (setting aside for the moment that the Studer is 2 Track and most people are going to want a 4 track deck to play tapes on). Mallett, your TC-765 has a FR of 30Hz - 25Khz at 7.5 IPS, which is exactly what you are looking for in a good home Repro deck. There is nothing that can be done to change those specs on either deck other than to replace the heads with something else and completely rework the electronics. I'm not talking about relapping the heads, or buying new ones, those specs are for brand new heads, in perfect alignment. Electronics after the head will not improve S/N ratio or FR. HWMM Otari MX5050 BII2 series are great decks. They were designed for radio stations, for primarily Repro purposes, and also used in a lot of universities and educations instutions. They can be abused by kids learning, and at radio stations where they probably didn't have a full time engineer to align them and maintain them. They were a much cheeper alternative to getting Ampex or Studer if you were simply going to be playing the most recent 7.5 IPS 2 track version of America's Top 40 over your radio station. Stations would receive their syndicated programming on 1/4" two track tape and someone would pop it on the Otari hit play and then watch a program sheet to know when to hit pause so they could play a local commercial from their CART machine. Otari MX5050 BII2 with the 4 head option are very popular with folks who got into the Tape Project because they Repro 2 Track at 15 IPS, in the IEC/CCIR equalization, which is the speed and equalization of Tape Project tapes. The BII also came with a 4th head option that allows you to Repro 4 track consumer tapes with NAB equalization used on US prerecorded tapes. (Canyonman, does Otari have 3.75 IPS playback speed also?). It is easy to switch the EQ on the back of the deck with the flip of a switch, and you change from 2 track to 4 track by sliding a switch on the head stack. So you have ONE deck, and it can play back both Tape Project tapes and prerecorded 4 track tapes. BUT, again, it is HWMM. The S/N on the Otari on 2 track at 7.5 IPS/IEC is 62db, which is very respectible, better than the Studer. On four track/NAB it is also 61db. That is less S/N which of course equates to slightly more noise than your Sony Mallett. The FR at at 7.5 IPS on the Otari is 20Hz to 18Khz, Mallett that is 10 on the bottom end of your Sony, but you have more top end. Another deck that is very popular with Tape Project customers are the Technics decks with the Isoloop type transport. They are available in a number of models that have both a two track and 4 track Repro capability. However, they are only available with NAB EQ, unlike the Otari, and so a lot of folks with that machine both tube Repro amps from Bottlehead.com that you wire directly to, guess what, THE HEADs, that offer NAB and IEC Eq, and balanced inputs and outputs (that is a topic for a whole different discussion of why it is nice to have balanced inputs/outputs on a deck, but unless you have balanced electronics up the line, like BAT, not worth discussing at this point). Bottleheads has two head preamplifiers available, one is about $800 or so and another that is someting like $4K. By the way, MX110 and other vintage Mac preamps have a built in head preamp that sounds absolutely stunning. It is not difficult to do the direct wire on this if anyone wants to try it out. The FR response on the Technics heads are stunning, 20Hz to 25Khz at 7.5 IPS, and 30Hz to 30Khz at 15 IPS which is as good or better than just about any deck out there, Pro or consumer. They are not as strong on noise, 60db S/N ratio. Before I talk a talk about consumer decks let me bring up the gold standard, the Ampex ATR 100 series machine. Tape Project tapes are recorded on these machines. There is a very good reason for this--it is the HWMM. The S/N Ratio ofr 15 IPS/IEC is 74db! That is over 10x quieter than a Studer. The FR at 15 IPS is 20HZ to 20Khz. As far as consumer decks for listening to 4 track prerecorded tapes there are a lot of different ways to go. Towards the end, in the 80s the top of the line consumer decks were achieving some remarkable things, they were every bit as good as Pro decks in terms of Repro. They don't have the beautiful fluid transports of a Studer or an Ampex, but than who plays R2R 12 hours a day, 200 days a year at home to where you would even need that. The Akai, the Technics, the Revox all have superior Repro capability than most Pro decks because they were designed for primarily hi-fi repro in mind and used heads designed primarily for Repro and HWMM. For example, Akai 747 with those great GX heads have a FR of 25 Hz to 33Khz, and a S/N of 65db. WIth built in DBX and using EE tape I think the S/N ratio jumps to someting like 80db or higher.You you have close to 100db of dynamic range, equal to CD. The Revox B77 has a great transport and respectible S/N and FR. One of the last consumer decks was the X2000 R, it has a FR of 30 to 40Khz (thats Forty) and a S/N of 65db. You don't even need noise reduction with that good of a ratio, but if you want to put your amp up to full blast and don't want to hear any hiss just punch the DBX NR in and you have a S/N of 100db and dynamic range of over 115db exceeding the DR of CD. Mallett, the specs on yous deck are incredibly good, and now that you have got it back up to spec I can only imagine how great it sounds. It has as good or better S/N ratio and FR of Pro decks including Studer, 3M, MCI, Roberts, Stellavox, Nagra and Otari because it has heads that were designed and made primarily for playback of 3.75 and 7.5IPS prerecorded tapes. And, HWMM. I hope to be able to hear it some day. Boxx, my Aunt and Uncle live half way between Ovilla and Desoto, I would love to hear you deck one day. Travis

I agree with you 100 percent about how good tape can sound. If they have been properly stored and handled the prerecorded tapes just sound incredible. It is not really fair to compare your Studer to your Pioneer. I am assuming your Studer is two track, and so you are looking at about 25khz in bandwith and probably close to 75db S/N ratio (even better if you are running at 30 IPS) compared to maybe 55db S/N on the pioneer. If it was a well preserved prerecorded 2 track tape (which were not really made after about 1959) , or a Tape Project 2 track you were listening to on your Studer there is not going to anything better than that in any format. Let me know if you are going to sell you 909. I love mine. Travis

Dave, I sent you that tape in the hopes that it would rekindle your love of R2R. I am glad to hear that you went to the effort to get that great Sony deck back to 100 percent, and I am glad you are playing that tape. There is just nothing that compares to a good quality tape through a good deck. I brought a still sealed copy of Kind of Blue back to a Klipsch gathering in Maryland at LarryC's place. We put it his Revox, and people were blown away. Travis