1/2 inch Studer bliss

[rockitman]

those three decks (A810, MTR10, and 1500) are 'prosumer-broadcast' level decks a level above your Revox but not at the level of the Studer and Ampex master recorders. the Tascam used as the base for the UHA decks is also a 'prosumer' 'broadcast level' deck. I have lots of respect for the UHA upgrades and agree wholeheartedly that it's a great choice for plug and play with minimum hassle.

but for what you pay for the upper but not top level UHA machine you can buy an essentially brand new fully reconditioned ATR-102 from ATR Services (if they have one to sell you).....or a pristine example of a Studer A-820. and these machines are in a whole different league from the UHA level of performance.

none of the 'prosumer-broadcast' level decks were ever configured to use 1/2", or had 1" or 2" 24 track. why? because they were not intended to be master recorders. they are all fine machines built to price points. not cost no object all-in workhorses like the master recorders. and when things are right with the 'big boys' you can hear the difference.

like the difference between a nice turntable with a modest tonearm and the best turntables with the best tonearms.

For a production environment like Bruce B's..the big Studer A80's make sense. For the home user, imho...you cannot beat the UHA....flawless operation, better sound...the KC repro does not sound as good as Greg's top line UHA repro electronics. New parts still available. The only thing that is Tascam are the logic control bds and spooling motors...that is it, imo it's more than just an upgraded prosumer deck. Expensive ? Yes and you can set yourself up for less with a recon Studer and outboard electronics...will it sound as good as the full boat UHA ? I don't think so, that is why I went that route along with having a more space friendly deck that requires no work...plug and play as you say.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

For a production environment like Bruce B's..the big Studer A80's make sense. For the home user, imho...you cannot beat the UHA....flawless operation, better sound...the KC repro does not sound as good as Greg's top line UHA repro electronics. New parts still available. The only thing that is Tascam are the logic control bds and spooling motors...that is it, imo it's more than just an upgraded prosumer deck. Expensive ? Yes and you can set yourself up for less with a recon Studer and outboard electronics...will it sound as good as the full boat UHA ? I don't think so, that is why I went that route along with having a more space friendly deck that requires no work...plug and play as you say.

I will agree with you on one thing; output electronics are very much a matter of taste and context. and I've heard many different examples of output electronics.

do you imagine that a tweaked mid level turntable could compete mechanically with your TechDas?

I did own a Tim de Paravicini tweaked Technics RS-1500 with his tape path mods and custom output electronics. with all due respect to Greg, is it likely he took the Tascam farther than Tim took the Technics? Tim has quite a bit of high level tape deck modding experience....and might be the authority on that subject.

I've owned a stock ATR-102, the Nagra T and the Nagra IV.

if you get a chance to ever compare your UHA (or any UHA) directly with a top condition stock ATR-102 i'd be interested in your take on the result.

after all that is said....you could be 100% right.

 

[rockitman]

I will agree with you on one thing; output electronics are very much a matter of taste and context. and I've heard many different examples of output electronics.

do you imagine that a tweaked mid level turntable could compete mechanically with your TechDas?

I did own a Tim deParavicini tweaked Technics RS-1500 with his tape path mods and custom output electronics. with all due respect to Greg, is it likely he took the Tascam farther than Tim took the Technics? Tim has quite a bit of high level tape deck modding experience....and might be the authority on that subject.

I've owned a stock ATR-102, the Nagra T and the Nagra IV.

if you get a chance to ever compare your UHA directly with a stock ATR-102 i'd be interested in your take on the result.

after all that is said....you could be 100% right.

TT's and tape decks are not the same animal. A tape deck must have a great transport, heads and repro electronics. If it is perfectly aligned and calibrated, you are done. I think you will be hard pressed to find a better sounding deck than a UHA. Heck, even the power supply for repro and another for the spoolers is outboard. Let me ask you this, do you see any oxide flakes on the 820 deck under the head block after you spool and play a few or many tapes ? I would find it hard to believe you haven't. I keep a white piece of paper under my UHA headblock and after playing over 100 tapes haven't seen a single flake. That speaks volumes on the quality of the UHA transport. Is it as heavy duty as a Studer ? No, but it doesn't need to be for non production environments. In the end there are many ways to skin a fish when it comes to tape playback. I think you underestimate the quality of the UHA deck. One thing for sure, I won't have to worry about a blown cap, diode, resistor or transistor which is an inevitable reality with the old work horse pro decks.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

TT's and tape decks are not the same animal. A tape deck must have a great transport, heads and repro electronics. If it is perfectly aligned and calibrated, you are done. I think you will be hard pressed to find a better sounding deck than a UHA. Heck, even the power supply for repro and another for the spoolers is outboard. Let me ask you this, do you see any oxide flakes on the 820 deck under the head block after you spool and play a few or many tapes ? I would find it hard to believe you haven't. I keep a white piece of paper under my UHA headblock and after playing over 100 tapes haven't seen a single flake. That speaks volumes on the quality of the UHA transport. Is it as heavy duty as a Studer ? No, but it doesn't need to be for non production environments. In the end there are many ways to skin a fish when it comes to tape playback. I think you underestimate the quality of the UHA deck. One thing for sure, I won't have to worry about a blown cap, diode, resistor or transistor which is an inevitable reality with the old work horse pro decks.

modern formulation tapes rarely flake. I get zero residue on my heads and tape path.

as I said in my earlier post; I respect the work Greg has done on the UHA decks. and you are correct that i'm no expert on the level of modifications he has done. I have heard them and seen them at many shows.

if you think that mechanical and engineering advantages of a higher build quality help with the performance of tt's but not with RTR decks, I wonder where you got that idea?

did you listen to a number of great condition master recorders and then compare those directly to the UHA? or did you take someone's word for that?

 

[rockitman]

if you think that mechanical and engineering advantages of a higher build quality help with the performance of tt's but not with RTR decks, I wonder where you got that idea?

did you listen to a number of great condition master recorders and then compare those directly to the UHA? or did you take someone's word for that?

The TT comparison does not work for me. They are apples and oranges. The sound is read in a completely different manner. With TT's one has to be very careful on managing vibration/resonance. I really don't see how those issues relate to magnetic tape playback like they do with vinyl in a major way. As far as hearing other decks....if you are using the same outboard repro amp on a variety of well sorted pro decks and they are all in perfect working order, I would expect the sound to be very consistent across the bd. given the same head and repro amp, I highly doubt the 820 will sound any better than an 810 given the same head and repro....in fact I would expect them to sound nearly identical and that goes for atr's too.

 

[audioblazer]

My opinion only . So don't shoot me .
I think no way a BMW can outperform a Ferrari , no matter how U modified BMW. That's how I see Tascam compared to Studer A820 as a transport

 

[rockitman]

My opinion only . So don't shoot me .??????
I think no way a BMW can outperform a Ferrari , no matter how U modified BMW. That's how I see Tascam compared to Studer A820 as a transport

I guess you would need to hear them side by side then. The car comparison is irrelevant to the conversation.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

The TT comparison does not work for me. They are apples and oranges. The sound is read in a completely different manner. With TT's one has to be very careful on managing vibration/resonance. I really don't see how those issues relate to magnetic tape playback like they do with vinyl in a major way. As far as hearing other decks....if you are using the same outboard repro amp on a variety of well sorted pro decks and they are all in perfect working order, I would expect the sound to be very consistent across the bd. given the same head and repro amp, I highly doubt the 820 will sound any better than an 810 given the same head and repro....in fact I would expect them to sound nearly identical and that goes for atr's too.

a few ideas to ponder....

--power cords matter on RTR decks, power plugs matter......power supplies matter. master recorders have more robust power supplies than prosumer/broadcast machines....and we all know what that means.

--resonance control matters with RTR decks. place your UHA on Stillpoints or Wave Kinetics A10 U8's to prove it to yourself. and the actual mass and solidity of the deck chassis has an effect on the solidity of the sound.....just like a turntable. an 810 does not sound the same as an 820. lots of the electronics are the same but the tape path has some differences, the motors are different, and the chassis is radically different. for the A820 just removing the wheels and placing the rack on a solid spiked platform is a positive change.

--why does eliminating the record head yield better sound? because every simplification/improvement in the tape path is audible. the quality and smoothness of the bearings matter. there is so much information that everything matters.

--any audio format based on a mechanical process will have a performance component related to improvements in the mechanical processes.

is the UHA a great tape deck? sure it is. I never said it was not.

but when it starts to cost $15k-$22k then it brings some of these amazing master recorders into the picture as alternatives if you can find the right one.

that is all I was saying.

under $10k (maybe even under $12k) the UHA is a no-brainer as the best way to get into tape.

 

[jtinn]

Hmmm......

I highly doubt the 820 will sound any better than an 810 given the same head and repro....in fact I would expect them to sound nearly identical and that goes for atr's too.

Christian, unfortunately I believe you are mistaken. I can tell you from personal experience that there is a noticeable difference between an A810 and an A820 and an Ampex ATR-102. I do not know that your statement of the "same head and repro" has anything real (no pun intended) behind it. There are many things besides the heads and the repro that determine the sound of tape playback. It is just like saying that taking the same tonearm and cartridge and putting it on three different turntables that it would sound the same on all. It is just not so.

I have also heard a direct comparison between the UHA and the stock ATR-102, in the same system, and you do not want to know the results.

I believe Mike's statement regarding the Technics in comparison to the Tascam is extremely valid.

Don't get me wrong, for those limited to needing a compact solution, Greg certainly offers one good solution as does Arian.

 

[rockitman]

Christian, unfortunately I believe you are mistaken. I can tell you from personal experience that there is a noticeable difference between an A810 and an A820 and an Ampex ATR-102. I do not know that your statement of the "same head and repro" has anything real (no pun intended) behind it. There are many things besides the heads and the repro that determine the sound of tape playback. It is just like saying that taking the same tonearm and cartridge and putting it on three different turntables that it would sound the same on all. It is just not so.

I have also heard a direct comparison between the UHA and the stock ATR-102, in the same system, and you do not want to know the results.

I believe Mike's statement regarding the Technics in comparison to the Tascam is extremely valid.

Don't get me wrong, for those limited to needing a compact solution, Greg certainly offers one good solution as does Arian.

Please explain to me how two different transports impart their sound on a given tape ? My contention is if the transport is performing at spec and the two decks in question albeit different have the same heads and repro amp, how is one going to sound any different than the other ? If you are suggesting transports are akin to tonearms and impart their own sound on the tape playback and sound quality, I would sure like to hear your explanation. I suppose you would take it a step further and suggest that RTR chassis' are akin to TT plinths and that studer thought about resonance issues when designing their box 35 years ago that hold the tape deck guts too...correct ?

I have also heard a direct comparison between the UHA and the stock ATR-102, in the same system, and you do not want to know the results.

Please share your findings...what UHA and what system ?

 

[microstrip]

(...) Please explain to me how two different transports impart their sound on a given tape ? My contention is if the transport is performing at spec and the two decks in question albeit different have the same heads and repro amp, how is one going to sound any different than the other ? If you are suggesting transports are akin to tonearms and impart their own sound on the tape playback and sound quality, I would sure like to hear your explanation. I suppose you would take it a step further and suggest that RTR chassis' are akin to TT plinths and that studer thought about resonance issues when designing their box 35 years ago that hold the tape deck guts too...correct (...)

Christian,

It was all answered long ago by a brilliant engineer who carried fantastic work in magnetic tape reproduction John G. McKnight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._McKnight. His studies on scrape flutter and how to quantify it explained why serious (mostly professional) tape machines have similar official specs to consumer ones and sound much better. A relevant paper on this subject can be found here: http://home.comcast.net/%7Emrltapes/mcknight_flutter-analysis-for-identifying.pdf.

Every model of a tape machine has a clear signature, due to the dimensions of the rolling parts. Looking at the flutter spectra of my A80's I can know which mechanical part needs attention. It is all there, with tables for several machines. http://home.comcast.net/~mrltapes

 

[rockitman]

Christian,

It was all answered long ago by a brilliant engineer who carried fantastic work in magnetic tape reproduction John G. McKnight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._McKnight. His studies on scrape flutter and how to quantify it explained why serious (mostly professional) tape machines have similar official specs to consumer ones and sound much better. A relevant paper on this subject can be found here: http://home.comcast.net/%7Emrltapes/mcknight_flutter-analysis-for-identifying.pdf.

Every model of a tape machine has a clear signature, due to the dimensions of the rolling parts. Looking at the flutter spectra of my A80's I can know which mechanical part needs attention. It is all there, with tables for several machines. http://home.comcast.net/~mrltapes

good info Micro. I will school myself on it.

 

[jdza]

I suppose you would take it a step further and suggest that RTR chassis' are akin to TT plinths and that studer thought about resonance issues when designing their box 35 years ago that hold the tape deck guts too...correct ?

RTR chassis is a critical part of performance. It is in fact the most important part. Studer understood this with the A80 chassis of 1969 and Ampex understood it ( with different solutions) in the MR 70 and subsequently in the 440 of 1967.The plane and rigidity in which all components are held in relation to each other and the tape in its travel is vital to the quality of reproduction and recording. Studers were built on enormously expensive precision cast chassis in which every component was precisely aligned with endless shims.All mechanical components on the Ampex machines were hung from a precision made steel plate-that shiny front panel on the MR70/AG440s has nothing to do with looks.

The Tascam machines as well as the Otaris totally disregard this and consists of endless numbers of bent metal plates bolted together with little regard for these issues.For near fanatical conclusion to these aspects visit the work of Fred Thal where he takes these issues as far as they can go in the rebuilding of Studer A80 and A 820 machines. Thal previously worked for Otari and has scathing things to say about the disregard Japanese manufacturers has shown to to these critical issues

Regarding scrape flutter. This is caused by moving tape oscillating between rigid points in the tape path.It creates a nasty quality to reproduction that does not sound remotely like Flutter. All high quality machines have (amongst others )a roller between the replay and record heads to reduce this . I once on this very Forum commented nastily on a picture Rockitman posted of a UHA/Tascam headblock clearly showing the absence of such roller as well as the poor rigidity of the native Tascam headblock. Subsequent photos on the UHA homepage does show an added roller in this position . This IMO shows that Mr Beron really does know what he is doing and must be privately lamenting that the only transport he can reliably use is not really what he wants to use?

Finally: Rockitman has at least twice now lashed out at the residue left by Studer A810s as tape passes through the machine. This residue is caused by the electronically controlled tape lifters when they are not precisely aligned. The lifters are not in contact during play and thus have no effect on reproducing quality.

 

[rockitman]

Christian,

It was all answered long ago by a brilliant engineer who carried fantastic work in magnetic tape reproduction John G. McKnight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._McKnight. His studies on scrape flutter and how to quantify it explained why serious (mostly professional) tape machines have similar official specs to consumer ones and sound much better. A relevant paper on this subject can be found here: http://home.comcast.net/%7Emrltapes/mcknight_flutter-analysis-for-identifying.pdf.

Every model of a tape machine has a clear signature, due to the dimensions of the rolling parts. Looking at the flutter spectra of my A80's I can know which mechanical part needs attention. It is all there, with tables for several machines.

After perusing the flutter article..I stand corrected. Transport signatures do exist for tape to a greater degree than I rationalized. Interesting. I will now eat my crow.

 

[rad]

Hi Christian,

After 10 years of Re-Entering the tape trail I would have to agree with the post above ( Mike, Jonathan, Microstrip, & Jdza ) concerning performance / sound differences.... Everything makes a difference!
The more resolving your system is the more you will pick up on these details, just as you have with your TT.

I started with the consumer decks as well & quickly progressed to the studio models & then to outboard electronics upgrades on my Studers & ATR.
The differences where not subtle!
I mean no disrespect as anything tape is a major step forward to getting closer to the truth in music reproduction.

Instead of us debating or (attacking) which deck sounds the best, we should maybe channel our energy to push for more source material in the tape domain.

BTW, great articles posted, good reading microstrip..

 

[rockitman]

Hi Christian,

After 10 years of Re-Entering the tape trail I would have to agree with the post above ( Mike, Jonathan, Microstrip, & Jdza ) concerning performance / sound differences.... Everything makes a difference!
The more resolving your system is the more you will pick up on these details, just as you have with your TT.

I started with the consumer decks as well & quickly progressed to the studio models & then to outboard electronics upgrades on my Studers & ATR.
The differences where not subtle!
I mean no disrespect as anything tape is a major step forward to getting closer to the truth in music reproduction.

Instead of us debating or (attacking) which deck sounds the best, we should maybe channel our energy to push for more source material in the tape domain.

BTW, great articles posted, good reading microstrip..

I began to feel my deck was being attacked. In the end, I understand better about the importance of a well sorted transport. In my deck's defense, it does have a scrape flutter roller, Stillpont Ultra 5 feet and excellent wow and flutter specs so I don't think I am doing too bad.

 

[Bruce B]

I began to feel my deck was being attacked. In the end, I understand better about the importance of a well sorted transport. In my deck's defense, it does have a scrape flutter roller, Stillpont Ultra 5 feet and excellent wow and flutter specs so I don't think I am doing too bad.

I'd put Greg's deck up against any stock A80/820 or ATR.

Still interested in Jtinn's Reference deck and where he got to audition the UHA against the ATR. Certainly wasn't at DR's place.

 

[rad]

I'd put Greg's deck up against any stock A80/820 or ATR.

Still interested in Jtinn's Reference deck and where he got to audition the UHA against the ATR. Certainly wasn't at DR's place.

( AS I STATED) Instead of us debating or (ATTACKING) which deck sounds the best, we should maybe channel our energy to push for more source material in the tape domain!

I have heard the UHA many times in show & a home setup, wonderful tape deck & Greg should be applauded for pushing the envelope.
Just stating that there are sonic differences in transports.
I love the Studer A820 / Doshi setup. It's great that we can push the boundaries, may it continue in peace!!!!!

 

[rockitman]

( AS I STATED) Instead of us debating or (ATTACKING) which deck sounds the best, we should maybe channel our energy to push for more source material in the tape domain!

Totally agree and I apologize to those where I was a bit thick headed on the transport issues. My basic contention was, if you have different decks with the same or close to same flutter specs, ect...the same head and repro, I rationalized that the decks would sound nearly the same. I didn't like the TT analogy as that piece requires much stricter attention to plinth design versus tape deck chassis design. Vibration/resonance is more of a consequence... No doubt the studer chassis are as solid as anyone can imagine.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Totally agree and I apologize to those where I was a bit thick headed on the transport issues. My basic contention was, if you have different decks with the same or close to same flutter specs, ect...the same head and repro, I rationalized that the decks would sound nearly the same. I didn't like the TT analogy as that piece requires much stricter attention to plinth design versus tape deck chassis design. Vibration/resonance is more of a consequence... No doubt the studer chassis are as solid as anyone can imagine.

Christian,

RTR decks are affected differently than tt's by build quality and solidity, and likely to different degrees. the fact that the tape is held against the heads does make it less vulnerable than a cartridge floating in a groove. OTOH speed is at least as significant as is constancy of speed as with turntables. the issues with tape are much less intuitive than with tt's.

i meant no disrespect to the UHA and only felt the need to point out the alternatives and their merit; it was my thread and i was talking about Studer master recorders. you guys pushed UHA into the conversation. i did not mean to ruffle your feathers and if i could have a 'do over' i would have just left your and Bruce's UHA comments lay as they were. sorry.

as far as Bruce's contention that the UHA betters a fully correct stock ATR-102; i'll look forward to hearing that comparison at some point. the fully reconditioned stock ATR is less money than the upper level UHA's. i own neither deck so let the chips fall where they may.