Analog Audio Design TP-1000

[Zeotrope]

What are the experts' thoughts on tape hiss/background noise from say an album on tape? Would one expect more noise vs. a high-end turntable and phono stage?
For instance, my Nagra Reference TT/HD Phono is dead quiet - quieter actually than the Taiko Extreme/HD DAC X (I know, it seems hard to believe!).
Would one expect *some* tape hiss as inherent to the medium?

I noticed in the Ballfinger M002P review, the author mentioned prevalent tape hiss (although it did not impact the very positive review).

 

[dminches]

What are the experts' thoughts on tape hiss/background noise from say an album on tape? Would one expect more noise vs. a high-end turntable and phono stage?
For instance, my Nagra Reference TT/HD Phono is dead quiet - quieter actually than the Taiko Extreme/HD DAC X (I know, it seems hard to believe!).
Would one expect *some* tape hiss as inherent to the medium?

I noticed in the Ballfinger M002P review, the author mentioned prevalent tape hiss (although it did not impact the very positive review).

I have 800+ albums on reel to reel. A good number of them are multigenerational copies. Tape hiss has never been an issue for me.

I understand your Nagra Phono is dead quiet, but if the LP you are playing has hiss then you will hear it clearly. My point is, the hiss comes from the LP or tape, not the equipment (unless the equipment is poorly designed).

 

[Zeotrope]

I have 800+ albums on reel to reel. A good number of them are multigenerational copies. Tape hiss has never been an issue for me.

I understand your Nagra Phono is dead quiet, but if the LP you are playing has hiss then you will hear it clearly. My point is, the hiss comes from the LP or tape, not the equipment (unless the equipment is poorly designed).

Good to hear, thanks.

 

[dminches]

Good to hear, thanks.

The biggest issue with reel to reel is the cost and availability of the tapes. They are ridiculously expensive.

 

[Foxbat]

Zeotrope, you are correct, some hiss is inherent, but in case of the LP you should look not at the electronic noise, but the clean LP surface noise, that should dominate.

The sensitivity to analog noise is very individual... some people put their ear to the twitter, and if they can hear anything they declare the system defective. Others can perfectly tolerate some soft hiss, such as the tape hiss.

Today most tape lovers consider noise reduction detrimental to the sound and simply accept what the best tape and best electronics can deliver.

Which is not to say there could not be too much noise in some cases - due to defective electronic component or a magnetized head.

One way of reducing tape noise is through increasing the recording level, but I consider that practice objectionable. While reducing the audible noise it usually introduces the other negative artifacts, such as compression, which can be VERY noticeable. So when I record a tape I do it in conservative fashion, and to me such tapes sound more natural.

 

[Zeotrope]

The biggest issue with reel to reel is the cost and availability of the tapes. They are ridiculously expensive.

Indeed! And the process of making multiple copies does degrade the sound (yes, of course vinyl is not perfect either, in this regard).

Max playback before degradation occurs is 100(?) plays. This is another issue which is making me reluctant.

 

[dminches]

Indeed! And the process of making multiple copies does degrade the sound (yes, of course vinyl is not perfect either, in this regard).

Max playback before degradation occurs is 100(?) plays. This is another issue which is making me reluctant.

If you buy enough reels you won't have time to play them 100 times. Kidding aside, my guess is that LPs degrade faster than reels but I have no scientific evidence to support that.

 

[Zeotrope]

If you buy enough reels you won't have time to play them 100 times. Kidding aside, my guess is that LPs degrade faster than reels but I have no scientific evidence to support that.

True!
Well there is evidence that LPs do not degrade on a well setup TT, with a cartridge that doesn’t track at say 3g or higher. At least according to what Fremer says, there is no degradation of vinyl (other than lacquers of course).
I’m OK with degradation- we all degrade ourselves and nothing lasts forever; I just want to know if there’s a consensus on how many plays we are talking about. 100?

 

[bonzo75]

Here’s how I use view reel machines used for playback. The recording side is a whole other animal and most of us aren’t making production duplicates.

Similar to playing a record, there are 3 main elements to playing a reel: transport, head and playback electronics. To me, they align with a turntable platter, arm and cartridge, and phono preamp.

I have had used mainly Studers (A810 and A812) and Technics (RS1500) although I also have Tascams (BR-20) and Otaris (MX5050). Based on my experience, the Technics transport is as good as the Studers. It handles the tape just as well and operates as smoothly.

On both the Studers and Technics I have wired out Flux Magnetic heads so there is little, if any, difference there.

Finally, I use a Doshi EVO tape preamp for both so that is the same too.

My point? A Technics RS1500, wired out to a quality phono pre is going to perform as well as all these “commercial” units since I am using it just as a transport. I have seen how the Ampex units as well as some of the other units handle tape. They are all great machines. However, once you wire out the head they are reduced to being a transport.

I do remember Myles’ technics via the Doshi, sounded great

 

[jonathanhorwich]

Indeed! And the process of making multiple copies does degrade the sound (yes, of course vinyl is not perfect either, in this regard).

Max playback before degradation occurs is 100(?) plays. This is another issue which is making me reluctant.

My experience with top customized pro machines is no noticeable wear even playing a tape over 60-70 times or more. I was surprised myself. I use SM900 by RTM in France, which has been flawless for me.

 

[dminches]

BTW, I will caveat my "the tapes are ridiculously expensive" comment with the fact that Jonathan's reels are the most reasonably priced ones out there. And, the music is amazing. https://www.internationalphonographinc.com/master-tape-copies

 

[jonathanhorwich]

BTW, I will caveat my "the tapes are ridiculously expensive" comment with the fact that Jonathan's reels are the most reasonably priced ones out there. And, the music is amazing. https://www.internationalphonographinc.com/master-tape-copies

Thank you for your kind words. Very appreciated.

 

[adrianywu]

Can we get back to the subject of this thread, the Audio Design TP-1000?
Personally, I don’t want a refurbished unit and space and aesthetics are important, so the TP-1000 is interesting, as is the Ballfinger (but will keep comments on that in a separate thread).

The posts above brought out some very valid points regarding this new machine, which is maintenance, reliability etc. Since Charles (Stellavox) has listened to it and found it sounding excellent, I have no reservation about it on this aspect. I have seen the machine, played with it a bit and listened through headphones during Munich High End 2023. The transport is very smooth and seems to handle the tape gently. The sound was good through the headphones The risk of the company not surviving long-term and thus customers are left with no repair, maintenance or spare parts is something I consider important. This was one of the reasons why I bought two Nagras and a Revox.

 

[Zeotrope]

Thanks. Regarding servicing - anything can be serviced if there is a willingness. Revox is obviously out of business, yet there are still people that service them.
Has anyone compared the TP-1000 to the Ballfinger M002P?

 

[adrianywu]

My experience with master tapes of commercial recordings (production, safety masters) is that the hiss can vary greatly depending on the tape stock used and the age of the recording. Mercury recordings tend to have high hiss, but this came from the 35mm magnetic film they used. Some of the early stereo tapes (1954- 1958) have higher levels of tape hiss, but I rarely find these up to an objectionable level. As Victor (Foxbat) mentioned, the recording level also matters. Decca, I think, recorded at 396 nWb, whereas other labels usually at 250 nWb. Decca tapes therefore tend to have more print through but less hiss. Dolby encoded tapes from the early 1970s would of course have lower noise level, but I find these tend to sound a bit more opaque than non-Dolby recordings. 4-track tapes can be very variable. The best ones can approach master tape quality. The best ones were made by Ampex, and I find the London branded ones usually better than the others. 4 tracks tend to have a slightly higher level of hiss due to the narrower track width and the inferior tape stock, and can also suffer more from print through. The hiss is of a lower frequency since they run at 7.5 ips. Given the price (at least for classical titles), they can be a real bargain.

 

[adrianywu]

Thanks. Regarding servicing - anything can be serviced if there is a willingness. Revox is obviously out of business, yet there are still people that service them.
Has anyone compared the TP-1000 to the Ballfinger M002P?

There are still people servicing Revox because tens of thousands of machines were sold over the years. People will not bother to acquire the tooling, spare parts and skill to repair and maintain machines that have little demand. Modern machines often run on software encoded in EPROMs that might not be available, which means the machines are unrepairable if the software is corrupted. Tape machines are sophisticated mechanical systems that require skill and experience to properly set up. Although the general principles are the same, different machines tend to have their own quirks.

 

[Zeotrope]

There are still people servicing Revox because tens of thousands of machines were sold over the years. People will not bother to acquire the tooling, spare parts and skill to repair and maintain machines that have little demand. Modern machines often run on software encoded in EPROMs that might not be available, which means the machines are unrepairable if the software is corrupted. Tape machines are sophisticated mechanical systems that require skill and experience to properly set up. Although the general principles are the same, different machines tend to have their own quirks.

Right, ok. But don’t forget the other side: a modern machine with tighter tolerances, faster processors, etc. will be simpler and perform better, with better speed control, less wow/flutter, etc. It’s similar to how a modern car engine will require no tune ups and hold idle better than a restored ~1950s car. That processor can be replaced, the eProm can be reprogrammed. Ultimately, you are turning a tape past a head, it’s not rocket science.

If everyone had the same perspective, the R2R industry would not grow and would likely die.

 

[dcc]

I will be meeting Christophe Martinez next month in Paris where we will compare his tape deck against a Studer A80 VU belonging to a friend. I will report back.

I am not looking for another tape deck. I am very happy with my fully overhauled Studer A80 RC MkII and Nagra IVS/QGB combo.

 

[Zeotrope]

I can see your point though, @adrianywu, in that repairing a “vintage” machine is arguably easier. All those rows of old school PCBs that I see in a Studer or Nagra T for example are likely easy to fix - you can check each component and replace the ones that are defective. With a modern IC, you can’t - you have to replace the whole thing.

If the experts here were to consider a wall-mount R2R (I simply don’t have room for a stand/console unit), what would you look at from Studer, Nagra, ATR, or Revox?

 

[Foxbat]

Depends on the acceptable size. The smallest on your list is, of course, the Nagra, but it is also the least user-friendly and lacks many desirable features. The next in size would be something like B77 or PR99 - good size, great reliability. For more functionality I would definitely consider the A810.