Is Reel to Reel really that good?

[Jim]

I'm seeing a bunch of people talking about how good reel to reel sounds and am wondering just how good it sounds.

 

What is the passion with it,and why bother with it? Is it that much better than records? Or is it just the new fad?

 

Even if it is that much better, how do you go about copying records onto it? Don't you wind up losing SQ copying from the source?

[Ceptorman]

I think a lot of the allure is the interacting with the machines and the media. There's something very cool about dropping the needle on an album, probably the same with a RTR.

[Jim]

As far as records go, I started back up with mine, but RTR I don't know if I'd be really interested in as it looks to be too much work. I would also think it would have the same issues as cassettes would with the tape getting stretched, twisted, or snapping.

 

Definitely would be a good conversation piece and a "look at what I have that you don't" thing.

[Chris A]

Reel to reel can sound indistinguishable from the best digital in terms of sound quality, but the noise floor and the frequency response (loss of low end at higher IPS rates) usually give it away. 

 

I was hooked at age 6 listening to my dad's Ampex 970 playing Bach organ preludes/fugues, Bizet's Carmen, Manuel De Falla's Three Cornered Hat.  Hooked for life.

 

Edited October 14, 2015 by Chris A

[Mallette]

Right tape, right machine, R2R is equal to any existing technology.  Whether one is interested in it is largely whether one wishes to tap the still available recordings on Ebay and such.  Like LPs, 90% of them are sub standard.  Others are totally extraordinary. 

 

My first experience with Klipshorns was in PWK's lab and he played a 15ips recording the Franck "Organ" Symphony that imprinted me to this day.

 

However, as something to archive things on today it's something of a fetish and maven thing. 

 

I have one, and a number of old tapes I enjoy.  But I could live without it much more readily than doing without the great mass of music only available from LPs and 78s. 

 

Dave

[Mallette]

Chris, I have DBX encoded tapes on Ampex Grandmaster with no audible noise floor. 

 

Dave

[wvu80]

C'mon RTR guys, fess up.  Tape is a magnetic media and after about 20 years the tape loses its charge.  There is no way a RTR tape from BITD sounds as good today as it did then. 

 

And even if a quality recording is made today, I have two words for you; tape hiss. 

Edited October 13, 2015 by wvu80

[Wolfbane]

I've owed three big RTR players over the years (Sony, Technics and Teac). All three sound/sounded great so long as you have good quality (now expensive) tape.

 

They also look real neat when running. 

[Mallette]

Tape is a magnetic media and after about 20 years the tape loses its charge.

 

No idea where you got that.  I have tapes older than that.  No problems.  Actually, my oldest is a couple of 3" reels from my first battery machine, which would be a little over 50 years.  Do they sound any worse?  Well, that's problematic as they weren't exactly hifi to start with...but still quite clearly audible and understandable.

 

Dave

Edited October 13, 2015 by Mallette

[rebuy]

Kinda funny since R-t-R was used for mastering so much music and then transfered to other media.

[wvu80]

Tape is a magnetic media and after about 20 years the tape loses its charge.

 

No idea where you got that. (Dave M.)

 

What exactly do think magnetic media is?  Magnets lose their charge eventually, I didn't make that up, blame physics.  

 

Seriously, when cassettes came out back in the 80's the problem was twofold, one that tapes did not hold their charge forever, and two most cassette decks did not  have the horsepower to properly magnetize them. 

 

That's why metal tapes were developed, and that's why higher end machines like $1500 Nachamichi's were sold, because they were powerful enough to properly magnetize a metal tape.  The cheaper tape decks wouldn't do that.

 

The metal tapes reportedly would still be just as good after 50 years, and the standard tapes would lose their charge after 20 years. 

 

I couldn't tell you after 40 years where I "got" that, but I did a lot of reading back then, back before the internet was popular.  I'm thinking it was Maxell or an article about them where I read that.  The three cassettes I used were Maxell UDXL-I (general use), UDXL II (higher quality and live recording), and Metal for the highest quality recording that would keep forever.  Those metal tapes were very expensive.

 

I think, based on what I remember, which isn't a whole lot these days. 

Edited October 13, 2015 by wvu80

[oldred]

Back in their day Reel to Reel was the highlight of any audiophiles system..... Generally a centerpiece.... There is no way I would ever not had a RR tape going during a party..... or just having people over..... Sound quality.... Unquestionably for its time (if done right) it was the bomb

[Mallette]

What exactly do think magnetic media is? Magnets lose their charge eventually, I didn't make that up, blame physics.

 

I am assuming you have a lot of experience in the field, as do I.  I won't debate.  I will say this is not my experience at all and as I don't make a habit of telling others what their experiences are yours are perfectly valid for you.  Thankfully, those who maintain the masters of the great recordings, or the National Archives who did not switch from tape to digital for archiving until after the turn of the century, also seem to have had better experiences.  Most of their collection remains on tape. 

 

The National Archives estimate of tapes viability was a century.  That's enough for me...besides the fact my own tapes have not yet lost anything notable. 

 

Dave

[Wolfbane]

 

Tape is a magnetic media and after about 20 years the tape loses its charge.

 

No idea where you got that.  I have tapes older than that.  No problems.  Actually, my oldest is a couple of 3" reels from my first battery machine, which would be a little over 50 years.  Do they sound any worse?  Well, that's problematic as they weren't exactly hifi to start with...but still quite clearly audible and understandable.

 

Dave

 

 

The big issue with some maker's rtr tape is not the magnetic issue but 'sticky shred'. Storage conditions may come into play but certain specific lines are notorious for shredding to pieces while sticking together.

[wvu80]

The big issue with some maker's rtr tape is not the magnetic issue but 'sticky shred'.

 

Actually, that's a good point.

 

My comments on loss of magnetic signal was based on my reading of the much smaller cassette tapes, not RTR.  I may have over-generalized.  It makes good sense that if signal loss was a problem for older RTR tapes, Mallette would certainly have heard of it.

 

The National Archives estimate of tapes viability was a century.  That's enough for me...besides the fact my own tapes have not yet lost anything notable. -Dave M.

 

 

Not viability, Dave, I was speaking of the original integrity of the tape being the same after 20 years with no degradation of the signal.  Metal cassette tapes reportedly have the same signal strength from playback number 1 to playback number 1,000 even after 20 years.

 

I think of it the same way vinyl records lose some audio information after being played thousands of times.  Neither bass nor treble is as dynamic as the pressing was when new.

 

According to manufacturers' data sheets and other technical literature, thirty years appears to be the upper limit for magnetic tape products, including video and audio tapes. (bolding by Dave S.)

 

http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub54/4life_expectancy.html

 

 

I know 50 year-old tapes will work, my point is whether or not they would still contain the original magnetic imprinting of the original.

 

Still, your point is well taken. 

Edited October 14, 2015 by wvu80

[JJkizak]

I bought the huge Ampex tape product manual (one inch thick)  which discussed all sorts of things like "after 50 plays the tape looses 3 db at 15khz". They also had for sale a wow and flutter test tape for about 300 dollars that they "accidentally" recorded to be no more than 1% which was absolutely phenomenal non weighted. Their 24 head studio recorders were rated at not to exceed 1% wow and flutter. They discussed wow and flutter to the fact that most commercial recorders far exceeded the even 2% spec. but weighted them down to 1% with magic. Gees, if I still had the book it might be worth some money.

JJK

[Coytee]

 

Tape is a magnetic media and after about 20 years the tape loses its charge.

 

No idea where you got that.  I have tapes older than that.  No problems.  Actually, my oldest is a couple of 3" reels from my first battery machine, which would be a little over 50 years.  Do they sound any worse?  Well, that's problematic as they weren't exactly hifi to start with...but still quite clearly audible and understandable.

 

Dave

 

 

 

Good point.  Though it's not RTR....in my opinion, it's worse....it's a Cassette.

 

Back in 1969 my dad took me to see Apollo 11 take off.  He had a little hand held recorder and pretended somewhat to be a reporter during the several days that we were gone.

 

During the actual lift-off I turned the machine on and from 1-2 miles away, recorded the sound.

 

Somewhere around 2005, something like 45 years later he was cleaning some stuff out and found the old tape.  He sent it to me so I could do with it what I wanted.

 

I sent it out to a restoration guy who copied it to a CD

 

You can still hear/feel the power of that Saturn V as it lit the candles.

 

Heck...  I'll see if I can attach it as a WMA file

 

Nope, won't attach.  Can send if anyone interested.

[Wolfbane]

 

 

Tape is a magnetic media and after about 20 years the tape loses its charge.

 

No idea where you got that.  I have tapes older than that.  No problems.  Actually, my oldest is a couple of 3" reels from my first battery machine, which would be a little over 50 years.  Do they sound any worse?  Well, that's problematic as they weren't exactly hifi to start with...but still quite clearly audible and understandable.

 

Dave

 

 

 

Good point.  Though it's not RTR....in my opinion, it's worse....it's a Cassette.

 

Back in 1969 my dad took me to see Apollo 11 take off.  He had a little hand held recorder and pretended somewhat to be a reporter during the several days that we were gone.

 

During the actual lift-off I turned the machine on and from 1-2 miles away, recorded the sound.

 

Somewhere around 2005, something like 45 years later he was cleaning some stuff out and found the old tape.  He sent it to me so I could do with it what I wanted.

 

I sent it out to a restoration guy who copied it to a CD

 

You can still hear/feel the power of that Saturn V as it lit the candles.

 

Heck...  I'll see if I can attach it as a WMA file

 

Nope, won't attach.  Can send if anyone interested.

 

 

Keep in mind the viability life of cd's is also going to be short as well. 

[WMcD]

Back in the late '60's I had a Sony with different record and playback heads which optimized performance. Also, the tape going through would be recorded by the record head and then played back by the playback head in another two inches or less of tape travel. That way you could do an A-B check on the source versus the recording.

At 7.5 ips they were indistinguishable. At least on my headphones.

They were Koss Pro 4A's which were considered very good at the time. Of course I took them apart and found, to my disappointment that the drivers were just Japanese transistor radio speakers.

The recorders were good for archiving and it was worthwhile making recordings of newly purchased LP's.

This was putting down two tracks on a tape running in one direction and then another two when you flip the reel over. So it was "four track." Thecommercial "8-track" cartridge had to move the playback head and ran at a slower speed. It is a tribute to Mr. Lear that this mechanical scheme worked. The tape was unwinding from the center of the spool and being taken up by the outside layer -- and slipping on the spool.

Back then some albums were released on tape and seemed pretty good quality. I had a few. But the duplication process must have meant you were getting a third or fourth generation copy.

Back in the studio . . . they were running the big Ampex at 15 ips. There must be some mathematical explanation but tape hiss was reduced at higher speeds and they were half track on the tape, just a left and right. You read about the Beatles and Abbey Road and the breakthough of 4 track on one piece of tape. Someone here will know, those might have been 1/2 or 1 inch tape.

Someplace in the early days of the Internet there was some quote from Ray Dolby. He overheard some recording engineers saying how they were going to run 15 ips and the Dolby A noise reduction system to really do a good job. That was Ray's first and complicated multiband system of compression-expansion to reduce noise. He was proud to hear it.

Using tape recorders to reverse recordings was popular with The Beatles. If you care to hear my thoughts.

With the studio systems of two track or one track, flipping the tape over would give you reverse playback. You hear a lot of that on Beatles albums. Let me think . . . I think they must have recorded some bars of music (or a voice). Listened to it in reverse. Then mimicked the reverse sound with instruments and played that reversed. So attack and decay were interchanged. Odd sounding.

On the voice reversal. Evidently this was used to make the "I buried Paul" effect.

The other incident of this was on Moody Blue's "Days of Futures Past." There is a gong at the end, very clear. At the beginning though, there is something odd. I'm quite sure it is the end gong in reverse.

Anyway, digital CD's work well for me. I wouldn't go back to Real to Real even if it was not so expensive. YMMV.

WMcD

[garyrc]

I'm seeing a bunch of people talking about how good reel to reel sounds and am wondering just how good it sounds.

 

What is the passion with it,and why bother with it? Is it that much better than records? Or is it just the new fad?

 

Even if it is that much better, how do you go about copying records onto it? Don't you wind up losing SQ copying from the source?

 

My old Crown 15 ips 1/2 track (sometimes with DBX noise reduction) produced recordings better than those on any other medium I've heard with the exception of (some) Blu-ray movie mixes.  The source and the playback (via the instant comparison Gil talked about) were identical to the ear, unless some very soft passages revealed a little hiss.

 

True, if you copy vinyl records, you may lose a little quality ... on the other hand, you may actually gain a different kind of quality, if you turn your speakers off while dubbing, because that eliminates the resonances that come from the speakers through the floor and vibrate your tone arm, turntable and cartridge.  I've noticed the difference with a well braced wood floor with speakers on at a good volume, v.s. speakers off.  Also, you can make copies of a clean, pristine record, then put it away to preserve it.

 

I have recordings that are 30 years old, no problems.  Some people who recorded at a high level have had print through problems.  Thick tape is better, that way, than thin.

 

The point Chris made about bass reduction with high tape speeds (which are better for the high frequencies) is a good one, but it may depend on what you want to record.  My Crowns were individually tested, and did fine as low as 30 Hz.  Most music doesn't have much below that. 

 

35mm full coat mag film was a better medium in several ways, but when people restore old 35 mag recordings (Mercury) or movies for which the original sound elements were done on separate 35/mag they have to hope they haven't turned to vinegar!