Reel to Reel Tape Decks

[CIGARBUM]

For you tape deck experts out there. I am maybe interested in getting one.

Questions: Quality compared to vinyl, CD.s

What is the difference between 7" and 10", beside 3 inches

What would be a good one without paying a kilzillion dollars, how much for something decent

Is there any pre-recorded tapes out there?

Any information in this field would be helpful.

As always, thanks

CigarBum

[Budman]

i know next to nothing about them but my brother loves his Teac Model # 3340 or something close to that.

just checked over on A-gon they have a 3340 pro model for 330.00

[Coytee]

I had an Akai GX-747 for probably 20 years. Of all things I've given away or sold... I regret the RTR the most. (and I gave it away)

I had it mated with a dbx 224 noise reduction unit (I think that was the number)

You can get more dynamic range on a 10" reel I think... you can play most of them at 3 1/2 or 7 inches per second (might not have the number right but that's the idea)

When you are playing at the faster speed, you get less play time but better S/N and maybe better dynamics??

There are pre recorded tapes but I've never seen one, just read about them

Regarding quality compared to vinyl/cd's... you always have the possiblity of tape hiss. When I used the dbx unit, they basically advertised it as "your tapes will sound as good as your source, it will not add nor subtract anything" In general, I'd say I was always happy with the dbx unit in use. (you should listen to a dbx encoded disk!)

I'm personally a fan of the 10" reels. More play time or faster speeds...and frankly, I think they look nicer.

[seti]

I think the quality is great but be prepared to pay out the nose for quality titles. I use mine to record my friends radio shows and to record music for parties. It is very convenient.

[garyrc]

I've had several.

• IMO, at 15 inches per second ONLY, they are at least the equal of vinyl (of course, if you are transferring from vinyl, rather than recording live, that's one more generation, so it may not sound quite as good). After resisting for years, I now agree with those who say vinyl is superior to CD, and tape also sounds better than CD: "warmer," less often harsh.

• For live recording, you really need 15 ips (or 30 ips, if you run into a refurbished studio machine) for top quality, and therefore you will probably want 10" reels, because the 7" don't run very long at 15 ips. The one drawback to 15 ips, in these days of ultra bass, is that there is a slight roll-off in the very low bass (below 30 Hz) compared to 7 1/2 ips ---- but 7 1/2 rolls off the ultra highs, so there you go.

• You must clean the heads often, and wait for them to dry completely before use. You need ventilation to do this!

• The 1/2 track TEAK (1/2 track = 1/4" tape with two tracks on it for stereo) was O.K.

• The 1/4 track 4 channel TEAK (the 3340s that the former poster mentioned his friend had) hissed like a puff adder in heat. It was not just the S/N ratio, but the spectral characteristics of the hiss made it sound more annoying than measurements would predict. I preferred to not use Dolby or DBX (had them both), because the sound seemed to be purer without either of them in the line. This can't be done with music with many soft passages -- then you need noise reduction.

• Best of all were the two CROWN SX 1/2 track machines I had ... CX is even better ... they were quiet, and reproduced sound beautifully. The electronic brakes (for rewind and fast forward) need very careful adjustment by a good service person. If you find some Crowns, look in the manual and see how to use slow rewind & ff only --- stay away from the ultra fast winding.

• As to what I didn't own, Revox was good. AMPEX, Scully, and a few other professional (studio) recorders were probably the best conventional tape recorders I ever heard (1/4", 1/2" 1" and 2", wide tracks all), but the Crowns could probably give them a run for the money.

• In general, wide tracks (e.g., 1/2 track, rather than 1/4 track) are better than narrow --- subjectively in several unnamable ways. Also, they are said to give you 3 dB less hiss. High speed is much better than low speed in the all-important overtones, and the higher the speed, the easier the editing. The best recording medium I have ever heard is 35 mm magnetic film, although it shouldn't have been better than 1" or 2" tape, it seemed to be. ... several record companies used a three track version, and several 70 mm movie processes used 35 mm mag film for sound, with 6 tracks.

• You might have a hard time getting prerecorded tapes, esp. 15 ips, rather than 7 1/2. Maybe someone on the forum knows. Email all the magazines and audiophile suppliers (like whoever took over Mobil Fidelity), Chesky, and the rest and ask if they know where to get them.

• PWK spent many happy hours taping his local symphony orchestra. I wonder what recorder he used. If you get permission to tape your local high school or college orchestra, band, etc., you could collect some great recordings with a pair of good microphones.

Good Luck

[Tarheel]

Teac, Tascam, Akai, Ampex, Tandberg, Revox, Sony, Studer, and Pioneer all made good decks. Parts availability may be a concern with most but Teac parts are available. The sound will be the same with the 7 inch or 10 inch reels though as Coytee mentioned the bigger reels look nice and can play much longer without flipping them over. RTRs need maintenance (head cleaning, demagnitizing) and the pinch rollers and heads can go bad. Also consider mechanical or solenoid controls.

I have had a Teac 3300 for over 36 years with just one trip to doctor Kaas. I have two Teacs in daily use in my system. Never bought a prerecorded tape but have taped live and made compilation tapes from CDs and LPs. Tape is still being made (Quantegy) and there is usually tons of new and used on ebay. The sound is good and hiss is barely noticeable on my decks. Make a tape from a CD and it warms up the sound a bit.

Hope this helps.

[LarryC]

My only experience has been with the Revox A77 that I have had for 30 years. The sound is outstanding IMO, with a strong, clear bass that puts LP and CD players to shame IMExperience. mine is 7.5 and 3.75, so I always use 7.5. I'd hate to have to use 10.5" reels, but then I'm not a fanatic!

Using a PS Audio P-300 AC regenerator to power the Revox made a considerable difference in clarity, smoothness, and bass strength -- the same benefits from using the P-300 to power my TT, CD player and Nak cassette deck.

All MHO and $0.02's worth.

[garyrc]

Just an anecdote, nothing more:

The audio service guy I used to go to in the 1970s was picked as "Best in the San Francisco Bay Area" by the Bay Guardian. He had a large fire ax hanging on the wall in his shop. There was a little label on the wall under it, much like the cards posted under works of art in galleries. It read: "Akai repair kit."

I'm sure that other brands could have been singled out for this honor, in other shops.

[JL Sargent]

I have been investigating this too having just purchased a 1/2 track 7.5 and 15ips machine. My Ampex ATR700 specs at 40 to 18khz on 15ips.

Most prerecorded tapes still out there are on 1/4 track unfortunately, but the higher quality recording capability is with the 1/2 track. To buy prerecorded 1/2 track material is crazy expensive. So, that kinda leaves you with recording your own stuff on a 1/2 track at 15ips for high quality audio.

Here is one I want to know. Can I use any 1/4" audio tape in my 1/2 track machine and make proper recordings on it? IE: can I use a previously recorded 1/4 track tape, erase it, and make a 1/2 track recording on it?

[seti]

PWK spent many happy hours taping his local symphony orchestra. I wonder what recorder he used. If you get permission to tape your local high school or college orchestra, band, etc., you could collect some great recordings with a pair of good microphones.

: ) the klipsch factory museum.

I understand this is the tape unit PWK worked on early stereo recordings with. I hope Klipsch records these very important recordings. It would be a great download section.

[LarryC]

Can I use any 1/4" audio tape in my 1/2 track machine and make proper recordings on it? IE: can I use a previously recorded 1/4 track tape, erase it, and make a 1/2 track recording on it?

While we're waiting for the real-to-reel experts to comment, here's my understanding of it: the 1/2 track recorder normally has a half-track erase head, a half-track record head, and a half-track playback head, per the half-track layout shown below. In recording, the erase head is supposed to erase exactly what is going to be recorded over, so the answer should be yes. That process will wipe out an earlier 1/4-track recording.

Naturally, 1/2 track stereo uses both the 1/2-track channels, and the tape can only be recorded and played in one direction, and has to be rewound to play it again. If you have a reversing machine, you get to hear your music backward. Or, you can record and play back one-channel mono, which uses only one channel at a time.

Four-track must be recorded and played back on a 4-track machine. Interestingly, however, half-track tapes can be played back on a quarter-track machine! This is because the quarter tracks are staggered, with one channel at one side of the tape and the other is at the other side. However, you're only picking up half of the recorded half-track width, for poorer S/N. Here:

Cassette tape tracks are laid down differently, with the channel pairs recorded right next to each other instead of alternating. However, I haven't heard of cassette half-track recording.

[Marvel]

Here is one I want to know. Can I use any 1/4" audio tape in my 1/2 track machine and make proper recordings on it? IE: can I use a previously recorded 1/4 track tape, erase it, and make a 1/2 track recording on it?

You can use just about any tape, however, most recorders are designed to use only a few different formulations of tape, and allow for the correct bias for those tapes. Others may work well and be able to be set up correctly for your deck. Some tapes don't hold up as well as others, and would deteriorate mroe quickly, and some may cause more head wear than others.

I still have my TEAC 3340S, and another model (portable). I can't remember the model, and it's buried in one of the rooms in my house.

Bruce

[CIGARBUM]

You guys never cease to amaze me with the base of knowledge you have. I guess I like these because they look cool, and lots of lights and dials and meters.

About the only use I would have is to record individual cuts from a CD and just play back my favorites. Sounds like the wider format is the way to go, better sound quality, if I understand properly. How long would a 10" reel last if recorded at 15 fps.

Anyone got a suggestion on a larger format RTR, make and approx cost, would like to get one that works, anyone got one collecting dust.

Thanks again

CigarBum

[Wrinkles]

At 15 fps (feet per second) you would get about 4 minutes with a 3600 foot 15 inch reel.

I believe you mean 15 ips (inches per second).

As per the cover of my maxel UD sound recocrding tape box

A 3,600 foot reel like a maxell 35-180 reel you get 192 minutes-both directions at 7.5 inch per second

So, this means you get 96 minutes per side of tape at 7.5 ips

A 3,600 reel you would get 48 minutes at 15 ips.

Wrinkles

[Tarheel]

7.5 ips is more than adequate for making tapes from CDs. No need to use 15 ips unless you are recording a master tape of live music. My 2 cents.

[LarryC]

7.5 is more than adequate for making tapes from CDs. No need to use 15 ips unless you are recording a master tape of live music.

I agree. Although my highest speed was always 7.5 ips, it seems to me that both costs and space requirements rise with 15 ips. With the Revox, the quality from 7.5 ips tapes, both pre- and self-recorded, is generally on a par with my LPs and CDs.

[garyrc]

As I remember:

• If you have a marvelous cartridge and tonearm, and a really good stereo Lp, 15 ips captures more of the detail and airiness. I had a switch that allowed me to compare the source vs. the sound that had just been recorded on the tape, right off of the tape itself (this was a three head, 1/2 track Crown). The two sounded pretty close to identical when using 15 ips, but not at 7.5 ips. The difference was clear when playing through Klipschorns, JBL S8s, or headphones, but sort of disappeared when using Bozak speakers. Anyway, I would think that this might be true when dubbing an excelent CD, too.
• For live recording that will last decades without print through, 1.5 mil tape is better than the thinner stuff. A 10" reel with 2,500' of this 1.5 mil thick tape on it only runs 30 minutes
• Tapes -- especially the thinner stuff -- are best stored as they are after they are played (or recorded) without rewinding. This is called "tails out." All of the studios I visited in the '70s stored their tapes that way.
• Note that you can't go both directions (in stereo) with 1/2 track
• You can't play back a tape that is recorded in 1/4 track in both directions on a 1/2 track machine and get what the composer wrote, but it may qualify as, well, psychedelic.

[WMcD]

In the late '60's and early '70's, I worked with some Sony's and Roberts/Akai. The Sony's were pretty much for home use and the Roberts was trying to be professional. At 7.5 ips they were all very good. The three-head Sony allowed real-time comparison of source and recordng. These were indistinguishable. The Roberts cross field head was just as good, to my recall.

Of course the headphones used to listen were Koss Pro 4 A. These had the equivalent of transistor radio speakers for drivers; maybe not up to modern standards. OTOH, something similar was used as midranges in speakers (save, of course, for Klipsch). OTOH 2 - my ears were younger.

There were some of the more popular recordings on R to R in the late '60's at 7.5 ips. They were a welcome improvement over vinyl because of lack of surface noise. I expect that the duplication process for tapes was a bit of a compromise.

I wouldn't buy buy an R to R today. Raw tape is getting rare. Of couse if you like the aesthetic, that is something else.

In my view, it is time to not hang on to the past and get with the digital, computer driven world.

I guess what we need is for someone to write a display (shell) for Audacity or the like which shows a big 10 inch R to R machine with sets of controls and meters and tape reel movement. That can be fed to a big screen TV and we can get our kicks watching it. Smile.

Wm McD

[Marvel]

Raw tape is getting rare. Of couse if you like the aesthetic, that is something else.

In my view, it is time to not hang on to the past and get with the digital, computer driven world.

There are multiple tape manufacturers...

Many studios still mix down to RTR and give that to the mastering lab. Some studios still like to work in analog. It's funny, now that the technology has improved to the point we could make killer machines and tape. It's not just for nostalgias sake, but for the quality.

Some will record to analog tape and bounce over to digital for the editing. Imagine that... like transfering a motion picture film to digital. It still looks like film. Audio can work the same way.You can get the benefits of both technologies.

But you need a good tech to maintain the gear... nothing like head alignments, and all that goes with it. Everyone wants a studio in the garage, and digital gear let it happen. Cheap gear got us how far? Maybe 95-98 %. Most folks won't know the other 2-5% is missing, especially listening on their iPods.

Bruce

[Groomlakearea51]

A Kevin Kaas (about the best in the local area) modified Revox B-77 does it for me. Nostalgia? Yes.... Fun to watch? Of course! Does it sound good? Yes; I use new tape from US Recording Media; see: (http://usrecordingmedia-store.stores.yahoo.net/rmsm1x25pain.html That tape is the same as the old Ampex GM 456, and works just perfectly. I use it at 7.5" IPS and generally use it to extract certain tracks from LP's that are not available on CD (or cost too much to be worth it...).

Greatest mistake I ever made was selling my Akai 635-DB. I should have kept it, but at the time had pretty much given up on R2R's as tape was unavailable, could not find techs to service it, etc. I've had Teac's, TASCAM's, Revox's, etc. I like the Revox the best insofar as it's very, very good and is built like a tank.

If you get a R2R, best thing to do is make sure you have located and spoken with a reputable tech before purchasing any particular model. I would at least contact Kaas (he's in St. Pete, FL) and get on his list for servicing. If you email me I'll provide you with his email address.

As far as what's the "best", well it's going to be wide range of choices. A 10" R2R is the best way to go. TASCAM (pro Teac), Akai (no longer made, but parts and techs are still around), Revox, etc are all very good.